What the left believes versus what the right believes

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

It is not about ideals.. it is about reality..


I bet we all have fairly close to the same ideals if the conspiracy theories are removed.



For example...


Does anyone really care if they stop making new assault rifles and leave the 80 million presently in circulation perfectly legal to be owned, resold or traded.. .. if they do not believe it is a precursor to total confiscation???


I don’t think enough to make up a voting block do care....


If you actually look at what the politician is proposing and not The slippery slope argument that follows , I think most people agree on most issues..


The problem comes in with the alternate realities both sides are selling.


Either 95% of the scientists are being paid off by George Siri’s to fake climate change and the 5% working for oil companies are the only ones being the voice of reason OR 5% of the scientists presently on the payroll of big oil companies are lying to save their employer money on regulation...



It cannot be both..


It could be neither, but it definitely cannot be both..



One side is lying, and one side is not.. Maybe.. lol


Either all the democrats are in a vast conspiracy to confiscate the guns OR it is all just nonsense meant to hype up the ignorant because EVERYONE knows it would be political suicide to even publicly say you wanted confiscation

M

Extremists on either side of the fence don't define the parties.

My take is that...

Extremists in the Republican party can be viewed as more restrictive because those people seem to favor unequal treatment for certain groups based upon race, gender or sexual preference. Republicans are the evangelical party and again the majority of it's members seem to favor more restrictive laws when it comes to personal liberties.

Extremists Democrats, on the other hand, seem to favor a society where individuals aren't responsible for their own well being and are encouraged to lean on the government for assistance.

Neither party is fiscally conservative and hasn't been for decades.

Moderates on both sides have been pretty quiet or they just don't exist any more..

I generally consider myself a condematarian; a conservative with a little mixture of democrat leaning-ness and a sprinkle of libertarianism, and I think y'all are nuts.

This is what I've come to understand:

The right believes Free market, Religion trumps law, police worship, and the desire to put their nose in others' business.

The left believes in unnecessary government regulation, higher taxes with no end in sight, feelings trump law, government worship, and........ a desire to put their nose in other peoples' business.

Both want to erode your individual liberties and rights under false pretenses to expand their influence and policing of citizens.

Both believe in market monopolies (whether by lack of regulation by the right, or excessive regulation by the left)

Both want to wage war and invade everyone, and only "oppose" wars when the other party starts one (and vise versa)

Both want to invade every aspect of your privacy and will stop at nothing to do so.

They both suck, one just sucks *slightly* more than the other.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You are wrong on almost every level. The right believes in freedom for everyone, the left believes in control of everyone. That's the biggest difference.

Jaden

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: dfnj2015

Do what Russia did then. Take away private ownership of everything. Jail those that complained as political dissidents. Kill tens of millions that cannot be converted to their new role of slave. As for company CEO’s steal their wealth until there are now jobs to be had but the government doled slave jobs.

But I will say this much. I saw an exhibit called forbidden art years ago. Under Soviet rule only approved people could be artists. Of the exhibit, one painting struck me entitled Prussian Blue. An interior house painter only had a single color of blue and paint thinner and painted a three dimensional ball using the thickness of the paint for a shading technique. It wasn’t the painting that struck me but the story of how and why it had to be done that way. All to be kept hidden behind the couch as this man’s personal bit of freedom and hope until the Soviet Union collapsed. Then sold for a pittance to have money to eat on when left to fend for himself.

What little life and health that I may have, I will fight to my death to prevent that sort of existence for my countrymen. And can never understand how someone so awash in freedom would clamor so quickly to throw it away. Especially when you haven’t begun to master the Seven Deadly Sins within yourself, yet trust volunteers to rule over you would have them suppressed?

But don’t think of you as commie baby eater or whatever. I do think you are at best quite naive, perhaps even willful ignorant; and at worst a damned fool. But even Mark Twain said “Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed.”

Funny, then, how the first thing the ussr did was to divide up all the land to give out to people for private ownership. Not sure how that fits into your narrative of deleting private ownership.

a reply to: dothedew

The right doesn't believe in putting their noses in others business. If you're referring to gay whatever here, it's about them not forcing themselves on everyone and forcing acceptance of their lifestyle choices, that is not putting our noses in their business. That's keeping their noses out of our businesses and the raising of our children.

Jaden

a reply to: dfnj2015

My problem with people on the right is they are always trying to label people.

Sorry, hoss, you lost your argument right there, second sentence. I spent eight years of my life unable to criticize any policy from an administration without being labeled a racist.

You have zero moral ground to even think about making that statement. Check the log in your eye before you try to help me remove the splinter in mine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pexx421

Sharecropping for the government is hardly private ownership. Otherwise those wheat farmers in the Ukraine would have been the oligarchs today because wheat was where ALL the non-military money went. And the Soviet space program like the US was military spending, just earmarked differently.

a reply to: Ahabstar

A) no country has EVER even attempted 100% capitalism and nothing resembling a modern country has attempted 100% socialism.


All modern countries are a mix and the only debate is over what sectors work better public and which private.


Everyone agrees police, fire, military, exc work better public , the only debate Is if healthcare and such would also work better public..


2) are most outlets propaganda for one party, or is it that one party is selling such a fake version of reality that everyone else cannot help but call them out for it??? Well except for Fox News and the hand full of conservative conspiracy sites of course..


What would be easier to do???


Pay off Fox News and handfuls of conservative news sites without journalists or pay off EVERYONE else..


There is a reason the gop stages every issue like it is conservatives vs. everyone else...

Because they know they are lying, so the only way you will still believe them is if you believe everyone else is in a vast conspiracy against them..

originally posted by: JustJohnny

Either 95% of the scientists are being paid off by George Siri’s to fake climate change and the 5% working for oil companies are the only ones being the voice of reason OR 5% of the scientists presently on the payroll of big oil companies are lying to save their employer money on regulation...

It cannot be both..

It could be neither, but it definitely cannot be both..

I would say it is almost certainly neither. There could be a couple paid off in either direction possibly - but without question the majority are not paid to have one opinion or another.

I think that they are simply humans, and they desire acceptance and do not want to question the dogma. Especially when 99% of the funding is coming from organizations that want to show there is a problem.

If you understand human nature, it is far easier to go with the flow, than it is to stand up against it, especially when you stand to gain nothing but ridicule and loss of income by doing so.

Any argument that starts with 90+ percent think this so it must be true is garbage to me.

For example 99% believed in the Earth being flat at one point. 99% thought we were ruled by greek gods etc. Consensus means nothing. Science disproves widely held theories constantly.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

From what I have read about that time, Russia had had it's revolution against capitalism. This scared the bejebbers out of the world capitalists because the ideas that were coming out of that revolution would mean that they would lose their economic power over everyone else.

So to that end many major industrialists, including Henry Ford funded Hitler in his early years in order to set up a govenrment to act as a bulwark to the rising tide of socialist thought at that time.

The road map to a socialist Europe as written by Marx held that the revolution would come to an industrialized nation first where the means of production could be taken over by the workers themselves. However, Russia was not much of an industrialized nation at that point, it was primarily agriculturalist. Germany however was very industrialized.

Germany could not be left to fall to socialism and hence, Hitler. He called his party a socialist party just to fool the populace into believing that they were joining a socialist movement when in reality it was nothing of the sort.

This followed a template set by Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini had been a union leader in Italy but when he took power he turned to facism rather than socialism.

Germany was not socialist, it was fascist.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Democrats care more about illegals than American citizens. They would rather protect the Kurds and defend the Syrian border, than protect our own.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: JustJohnny

Either 95% of the scientists are being paid off by George Siri’s to fake climate change and the 5% working for oil companies are the only ones being the voice of reason OR 5% of the scientists presently on the payroll of big oil companies are lying to save their employer money on regulation...

It cannot be both..

It could be neither, but it definitely cannot be both..

I would say it is almost certainly neither. There could be a couple paid off in either direction possibly - but without question the majority are not paid to have one opinion or another.

I think that they are simply humans, and they desire acceptance and do not want to question the dogma. Especially when 99% of the funding is coming from organizations that want to show there is a problem.

If you understand human nature, it is far easier to go with the flow, than it is to stand up against it, especially when you stand to gain nothing but ridicule and loss of income by doing so.

Any argument that starts with 90+ percent think this so it must be true is garbage to me.

For example 99% believed in the Earth being flat at one point. 99% thought we were ruled by greek gods etc. Consensus means nothing. Science disproves widely held theories constantly.

So what are these massive corporations and interests funding the massive consensus on global warming?? I’m asking because usually it’s easy to see. We could see Marlboro funding bunk science to discredit lung cancer research as they were huge and rich and stood to lose a lot of money. We can see the Koch’s and other oil groups funding anti anthro climate research because they’re massive and wealthy and stand to lose a large amount of money.

So who is this group in opposition to oil, apparently, who is wealthy and powerful enough to fund this massive propaganda?

Modern economies are mixed economies including the USA attempting to strike a productive balance between pure market forces and governmental control.

Extremists push things out of balance and the system corrects itself.

Have you even listened to and considered what your party leaders keep hysterically ranting on and on about. It has already been said more than once the Democratic party is acusing the president of virtually everything, not he, but what they themselves have and are doing.
I'm not calling you anything other than deluded because you refuse to remove the blinders to what your party is doing. Maybe not you but most certainly the party you support. I saw that the democratic party had abandoned their base supporters long ago. 15 to 20 years ago and told my my mother who was a lifelong democrat, that very fact. I was a registered democrat prior to that.

The right believes in anarchy, laissez faire capitalism, exploitation of workers, gouging consumers, freedom from consumer protections laws, and paying politicians to pass laws preventing competition in order to have monopolies and cartels.

Are you serious? Have you ever heard of George Soros, or Antifa? Your democratic party has supported this crap from the start. "It's their first amendment to protest"! Right! They perpetrate rioting and violence everywhere they go.

The left believes government has a role in regulating businesses and ensuring free-markets, protecting consumers, protecting workers rights with public policies, and tempering the excesses and inequalities created by laissez faire capitalism.

Scheesh! the left wants to controll every facet of life in this nation. The Green New Deal isn't about the environment. It's about control. Complete control of every facet of your and my lives. Your ignorance scares me.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Just where do you think the democrats were doing all this time? They are entrenched in congress and all the care about is power and control. The very first House resolution wasn't for medicare, social security or any other item that would benefit the public. The first bill dear Nancy submitted, HR-1 was to change federal voting rules and regulations to better guarantee democratic supremacy.
I could go on dissecting your post here but I recognize the futility in convincing you of anything.
I really do pity you in that you just absolutely refuse to open your eyes to their criminality. I don't think you have experienced too much adversity in your life. If you had you would probably be joining in on protesting the democratic criminality. I'll really rub it in here and tell you flat out, Hillary, Bill and anyone associated with them are lowlife scum and international criminals.
I don't have anything can say here to make you see the folly of your beliefs. If you don't factually inform "yourself" maby reality may convince you one of these days.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The " Left " Believes in NOTHING . There's the Rub .

originally posted by: contextual

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: contextual
nazis killed Socialists you need to learn history.

The Germans called themselves the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
The Russians called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Socialist killed Socialist.

nazis were far, far removed from Socialism.
Where do you learn such nonsense?

Nazis were born out of socialism apparently you need a history lesson. Hitler used socialism to take control of germany. This is why there are many similarities. It statrts in 1919 a Munich locksmith named Anton Drexler founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers’ Party). they were renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers’ Party. the reason they were called nazis is right in the name Nationalsozialistische. Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes. Both brothers were devout socialists. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party.


Hitler decided he wasnt happy just being chancellor he bans trade unions in 1933. And on June 30, 1934 he consolidated his power during the Night of the Long Knives. He removed all socalists from the party knowing they were the only ones that could stop him from attaining his goal.

Now the reason Nazis have many similarities to socialism is simply it was born from it. And hitler used socialism to gain power.

originally posted by: pexx421

So what are these massive corporations and interests funding the massive consensus on global warming?? I’m asking because usually it’s easy to see. We could see Marlboro funding bunk science to discredit lung cancer research as they were huge and rich and stood to lose a lot of money. We can see the Koch’s and other oil groups funding anti anthro climate research because they’re massive and wealthy and stand to lose a large amount of money.

So who is this group in opposition to oil, apparently, who is wealthy and powerful enough to fund this massive propaganda?

This is my suspicion. There are a group of people that desire world government. In order to do that they must even out the economic power of countries. They don't want superpowers like the US that can in effect exist outside of world government control.

Climate change is a means to accomplishing this. The paris accord was in my opinion designed to weaken the US and European economies while boosting others such as India.

Soros and the Rockefeller's have both publicly stated they do desire a one world government, and Soros is putting all his money towards this goal.

Also there is a ton of money to be made in business off of global warming, which is why Al Gore got involved in selling carbon credits.

a reply to: dragonridr

The only thing Nazism has in common with socialism is both are authoritarian.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Didn't you say previously that the left is communist? If so, how is it that they believe in nothing?