No I'd rather be called an anti trumper
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?
- Thread starter Mister Emu
- Start date
There are qualifiable and clear differences between organized group violence, lone wolf violence, mob violence etc. If you're worried I'm dismissing violence coming from the right, I'm not. If you want to start a thread about how to stop lone wolf terrorism as stemming from the right(I can't think of any leftists really engaging in that behavior currently), go for it. I'll show up and give my take on how and why it happens and what we can do.
Even if I misapplied the violence and oppression to the left as whole, which I didn't, it still wouldn't be a strawman. I'm not attacking leftism in this thread.
Your defensiveness with regard to your political identity is clouding your ability to understand what I'm saying and what the purpose of this thread is.
I only so designated the first scenario, human refuse just picking up and not being violent anymore. That would be a miracle.
That is not a premise I agree with.
Frances Wang on Twitter
Another video that shows "antifa" wielding their "flag poles" as weapons, from last year.
These people are coming with the plan to hurt anyone who stands up to them, they aren't coming unarmed.
If you habitually brought your laptop to bash people's heads in, damn right I'd call it a weapon.
I'll just call you "Itty".
Well pronounced!
I no how to talk good.
You forgot one, one that was so apparent, so given, that it was included in the very first amendment...
Ohhh, that is why. You don't agree with that one, so its okay to toss it aside for the ones you prefer. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree; I fully support the right of anyone to determine in their business what services they will and won't provide based on their religious mores. If you want to change it, get the majority of the people in 3/4ths of the various states to agree with you. I'll campaign against it. But, if you succeed, that's the democratic process.
And really, I don't see how your complaint is any different than mine about the degenerates who manufactured, without even consulting the states, a legally protected right to murder unborn children.
We live in a constitutionally protected republic with democratic elections. Your protection is only ever 3/4ths of the states away from non-existence. Tyranny of the majority, no. Tyranny of the super-majority? Yes.
Democratic republic, and yes, rights are up for vote; there's an amendment process. While I'd argue the goal isn't to take away rights(and the one time we did, we hastily retracted it), if 3/4ths of the states agree a right doesn't exist, it doesn't in America.
Constitutional amendment vastly differ from congressional legislation or federal action.
Notanumber
A Free Man
If Donald Trump had had an Islamist upbringing he would have been able to do and say whatever he liked and no one would have batted and eyelid.
Anne Marie Waters: BBC Made Me Look As ‘Radical’ As an Islamist Hate Preacher, For Opposing Violent Islamism
On the other hand, if you try to confront evil you are vilified.
Anne Marie Waters: BBC Made Me Look As ‘Radical’ As an Islamist Hate Preacher, For Opposing Violent Islamism
On the other hand, if you try to confront evil you are vilified.
esmith
Veteran Member
Was listing to a discussion between a liberal/progressive(call them person A) and a non liberal/progressive (call them person B). The discussion was centered around the protest and rioters during the past couple of days. Person B asked why those on A's side of the argument always seemed to have rioters within their group. Person A said that those people were not representative of their "party", but nothing more than paid agitators and hanger-on's that only wanted to insure the media covered the story and embarrass the current administration . Discussion continued along these lines then moved on.
Person B mentioned that those of Persons A political philosophy seem to think that the current President was a fascist and compared him to Hitler and person A said that the President's actions and words showed that he was that among other things. Now at this point in the discussion person B made a statement that got me to thinking. Now person B was an immigrant from a country that did not take kindly to discourse from their citizens. The statement went along these lines.
In a fascist regime and during Hitlers rise to power and afterwords political discourse of the government was at first met with violent action and after rise to power subject to a death sentence or confinement that was nothing more than a drawn-out death sentence. The actions that are taking place at colleges and universities reminded person B of the same tactics that were and are used by a fascist country and the Brown Shirts that brought Hitler to power and the follow-on polices of the Nazi regime and various other past and current regimes.
At this point the discussion broke down for all practical purposes.
To me person's B's observation had a very legitimate comparison .
Person B mentioned that those of Persons A political philosophy seem to think that the current President was a fascist and compared him to Hitler and person A said that the President's actions and words showed that he was that among other things. Now at this point in the discussion person B made a statement that got me to thinking. Now person B was an immigrant from a country that did not take kindly to discourse from their citizens. The statement went along these lines.
In a fascist regime and during Hitlers rise to power and afterwords political discourse of the government was at first met with violent action and after rise to power subject to a death sentence or confinement that was nothing more than a drawn-out death sentence. The actions that are taking place at colleges and universities reminded person B of the same tactics that were and are used by a fascist country and the Brown Shirts that brought Hitler to power and the follow-on polices of the Nazi regime and various other past and current regimes.
At this point the discussion broke down for all practical purposes.
To me person's B's observation had a very legitimate comparison .
By "organized violence against political dissent" are you talking about the police, or the black bloc hooligans?
Or maybe some of those thugs I saw roughing up Democrats at Trump rallies?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Indeed. They are funded.
Every ounce of data says you are wrong. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world by far (no one even comes close) and we are ranked 16th last I checked in healthcare services. Single payer healthcare singificantly reduces the cost while privitzation drastically increases it. Especially since we have put in laws that combat competition and price barganing. The single most common creator of debt in this country is medical debt.
Ration policy isn't a thing. You don't "ration" healthcare. It isn't a finite substance. We won't have "less" of it if we have a government funded program for healthcare. It is often triaged so it is basd off need. The only benifit in our system is having lots of money puts you at the front of the line withou reguard to others in severity of conditions.
Healthcare also isn't a customized "best option". You need treatment you get treatment. There isn't a special type of treatment that can be customized via privitization that is better than public funded healthcare. I pay 150 a month for my insurance now and I would probably only pay 80 a month in taxes to fund a healthcare for all plan. Sounds pretty easy of a decision to me. Especially since I have a 2 thousand dollar deductable and 20 coins. The flip is I pay less for healthcare in taxes than I do premiums and zero more after that.
They are funded publically and independent of personal capital. This is a very big distinction.
And so is yours. I understand my rhetoric. I understand what publicly funded means. For the sake of the debate I will abandon the term "Free" and replace with public funding. Do you have any further issues with my argument as it stands with this edit?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The anarchist group that no one is supporting that is not even part of the democrat effort? Those guys? I
Same as before. These people are not associated with protest planning. They are ******** who took advantage of it. If I went to an Obama protest and shot some rockets off at McDonalds does that mean that the anti-Obama crew was responsible for my actions?
If punching nazi's is part of the problem then I am a huge ****ing part of the problem. Nazi's don't punch back when they are dead. We learned that in WWII.
The rate of violence of protesters is rather low. I'll need support that a significant amount of damange has been done with respect to the size of the protests
edit:
Food for thought.
After doing a bit of research I have not found any deaths at all in any of the rally's. Some people got bruises and some people broke some things. Most of the protests were peaceful. However hate crimes against Muslims have skyrocketed. A few have even been killed.
Perhaps I will take you up on your offer and create my own thread and I'm glad to hear you wouldn't dismiss violence from the right. However, I still don't see the difference. Violence against others for their political beliefs is trying to silence the opposition no matter how you cut it. Whether it's in a group or not is irrelevant and trying to apply some sort of special rules or circumstances with "groups" and such just seems arbitrary. I think maybe we can agree that committing violence to others with opposing political beliefs both belong in the same disgusting category.
Well if you say you're not attributing it to the entire left (or even most of it I hope), then I won't push it. Though maybe making that more clear earlier on would have helped since it seems I wasn't the only person who seemed to get that impression.
Well until we see the kind of violence you're prophesying, I would just leave the guesswork out of it and not propose "blood in the streets" as being any sort of legitimate option.
And that is not a premise I agree with. Unless you have some sort of proof that all this was some elaborate plan, it's conjecture and until they're bringing actual weapons, it's hyperbole.
I'd hardly call finding 1 or 2 instances "habitual" especially when there are plenty of other protests where this doesn't happen. That's stretching the facts quite a bit in my opinion, but I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on that either, so lets agree to disagree.
Shad
Veteran Member
In 2015 Norway and Switerland were more expensive per capita. Being expensive does not mean services are expensive. As per the article Americans are more likely to have horrible eating habits and lack exercise thus become obese. This adds to the costs due to how people live. You are looking at the end result not the "why".
Health-Care Check-Up: Whose System Is Least Efficient?
Norway shows otherwise. If you have law preventing competition than your government has restricted the market thus is not letting the free market operate. Blame your government not the market.
Yes it is as government control the industry. Government decides who to hire, how many to hire and when thus controls the amount of doctors available. Doctors are not free to find work according to market demand but by government bureaucracy. Government controls which hospitals remain open or are closed. Hence why thereare cases of patients being left in the halls for week rather than a room. Government limited available space. When a recession hits government closes down hospitals to clean up it's bottom line as funding is part of the national budget rather than being based on competition within the market. Government controls the spending for equipment thus which hospitals offer which services.
Doctors, equipment, facility, funding are all rationed. These are finite. Infinite healthcare is a pipe dream usually held by those that never had to use the system in a major way.
Yet all my points above show otherwise. For Canada's system is being criticized for lack of services, lack of doctors, lack of locations, lack of infrastructure.
Which is a form of rationing by definition....
Hardly. The individual is free to seek other facilities if the current one is overburdened. They are free to seek different services from a complex program to a cut and out service of triage.
When government decides you need it and when
Yes there is as people can use services and facilities which offer more based on how much the custom is willing to pay. Rehabilitation services for example
You will be paying more from taxes than you pay right now The average cost for healthcare from taxes in Canada per person is over 4k a year, including children. There is no coverage based on relations.
Sounds pretty easy of a decision to me. Especially since I have a 2 thousand dollar deductable and 20 coins. The flip is I pay less for healthcare in taxes than I do premiums and zero more after that.
You are just taxed per captia instead resulting in your paying far more than what you pay now.
It is a feel good distinction which omits facts for the sake of emotions.
You understand it yet you do not understand what the rhetoric has omitted.
Good.
No besides the points I brought up above.
Notanumber
A Free Man
I see now why they hate him. They certainly cannot debate him.
Christina was very good as well.
You have got to see the dog!
Highly amusing, entertaining and enlightening. Those rioters missed out big style.
I had never heard of Trigger Warnings before.
Christina was very good as well.
You have got to see the dog!
Highly amusing, entertaining and enlightening. Those rioters missed out big style.
I had never heard of Trigger Warnings before.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Both Norway and Sweeden do not have universal healthcare. They have a system somewhat similar to the ACA. They also make far more money in median income. Per Capita it seems Norway is the only one that pays more per person. However they have far better income equality in their country so the average American would actually end up paying for significantly less in a single payer situation. Lastly the article mentioned preformance. I just looked up the United States and we are now 37th.
But look at the charts there and see that all of the countries with universal healthcare are much cheaper and have better scoring records in world wide healthcare standards.
Norway isn't a single payer system. They only have coverage for those under 16 and only for hospitilization if my understanding is correct. Adults (which is the majority of healthcare costs since young ones tend to be healthy) are not part of a single payer system.
So the deciding factor of these rations should be by need or by money? By your logic it should be money? It is not an item like sugar. Healthcare is a dynamic market based on skills. It isn't rationed off to an equal amount per person. It does deal with supply and demand of services but this is not the same thing as a ration. You don't get 3 medical treatments a month per person as you would sugar or any other product.
Secondly it wouldn't change the market at all with the exception of those that went without because they lacked the funds.
You have only made one point and that it was that another non-single payer system is slightly more expensive per person in the whole world.
Canada does have its problems. However they are not stemmed from the single payer system but actually a lack of medical professonals in the country. They are currently taking measures to change this. The problem, however, does not stem from the fact it is a single payer healthcare system.
dunno what you are talking about.
Ration- allow each person to have only a fixed amount of (a particular commodity).
You are free to do the same in a single payer system. You are not designated to a single doctor or a single facility. The only thing that changes is that you don't have an insurance card but rather it is paid for through the government. It changes nothing in your ability to go to a preffered doctor.
To a degree. However they are more willing to pay for services than private insurances by far. I work with insurances for a living and it is private insurances that deny coverage far more often than medicare or medicaid. And if medicare (which is slightly pickier than medicaid depending on the state) simply requires the correct diagnosis codes which every doctor has access to to validate treatment. The doctor still decides what procedures you get and when. The government doesn't treat you. Your doctor treats you. The government pays for it instead of cigna or aetna or blue cross blue shield.
And if you want extra there is nothing saying you can't get extra. But the comprehensive levels of treatment should be broad. For example no universal healthcare will ever pay for a boob job. You gotta get that done on your own. If you want to go to a spa rehabilitation center rather than a medical focused one you can pay for that. It doesn't stop you from getting the extra stuff you would want to pay extra for.
You will pay less in taxes than you do on your healthcare insurance and deductable that is for certain. Average Canadian pays 4k in taxes? Is that the average per capita as that will be higher than the median. The average joe pays far less. You are basically saying you would rather pay more for worse coverage.
false.
IT means that you have coverage no matter your situation. That is an important non emotional distinction. It is always there. I don't have to worry about having to pay my road or school bill every month. It doesn't get taken away from me if I lost my job or was going through tough economic times. Not being based on individual capital is an inextremely important distinction that has nothing to do with feelings.
Except I have explained it throughougly. You still believe the lie that healthcare would cost more in a snigle payer system. You even used a non-single payer system as an example against it without realizing it isn't a single payer system.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Yeah, I'm no MarxistThat didn't work out so good.
Look, I'm not saying this as an attack but to really try and understand your reasoning - am I right in assuming that you support a free market economy with minimal state interference or regulation, and think that this would be more egalitarian?
I genuinely cannot understand how these are seen as compatible ideals when looking at the intrinsic functioning of free market capitalist economics.
I am very sorry about the late reply.
I like many righties support a free market with as little government regulation as possible. We believe in the power of people to make choices and along with businesses. This is why we do not support the concept of buying something because you can. We view capitalism as an exchange of values in the sense that: "my 5$ or worth your speciality burger." If something is too expensive for you and you cannot afford it or don't think the price is justified then you must not engage in that business.
Us right wingers don't believe in true egalitarianism. We only believe in the concept that every man is capable to be great and must be given the means to do so. For example, a woman will rarely have proportional upper body strength compared to a man and that is a biological fact. Yet why would you create a false world where you must confess to the muscular strength a woman has knowing full well few women do?
I would not entertain an egalitarian world because no such thing can exist. Some people will be better and some will be worthless, but they should all have their fair shot. Nature must run its course and I would not dare tell a person something knowing full well it is not true.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
How is it selfish? Is it selfish to not let every man in my neighborhood take my food and rob me of my livelihood? Are the things I work for not my own?
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
I get what you are saying but geesh that was horrible wording. Anyways . . .
The left does has a monopoly on violence, it does not mean right wingers can't be violent though. Better yet why not call it aggression since that is a more appropriate word to use since violence conjures up war and death.
And pointing out a few radical shooters is entirely meaningless when you have thousands of rioters in the street destroying property because they are taking part in entirely racist systems. These people are not radicals, they are typical.
What you have done is asserted the outcasts with the regulars. I do not need to do such a thing when it comes to my analysis on lefties. Unfair taxation, use of force to bully the world, use of force to manipulate business, endorsement of the undesirables to control other's affairs and the use of force to remove liberty from burdenous government. Be it Affirmative Action, taxes, gay marriage, federal abuse of powers, economic manipulation or racial wars the left is the key player in violence.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That is a non sequitur. To my statement.