The Left is for more controls vs Right no gov at all and Free speech

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Justoneman
Well let's have a look at full right wing governments in actual power (not the dictionary description).
People :- Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler and Augusto Pinochet. All of their countries run by right wing governments. All had governments that DID rule by tyranny and ALL rejected anarchy for totalitarian rule.
Does that make more sense to you.
And the same can be said for actual left wing run countries. China, USSR, Cuba, need I go on.

LEFTIST all, to a man.

Every one is a MORE GOV type.

Commies/Socialist/ Franco/ Mussilini/Hitler all were BIG TIME LEFTISTS.

a reply to: Justoneman

So you would say that something like Ancient Greece that allowed public drunkenness, complete criticism of the government, and freely accepted homosexuality is the pinnacle of Right Wing government?

a reply to: Justoneman
Of course they are all more Gov type. Please read my post. When left or right have total control they have total governments.
Please just try and google left and right wing politics. Communist countries like USSR, China and Cuba are left wing governments. BBUUUTTT, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were far right people and governments.
THAT is why ANTIFA is a left wing organisation opposing Fascism, a right wing concept.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Blueracer
"That is patently false". Libertarians want Limited government.

There are anarcho-Libertarians, this is a fact.

I never heard of that word in my life. Did you coin it? I always thought libertarians were minarchist not anarchist.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Justoneman

So you would say that something like Ancient Greece that allowed public drunkenness, complete criticism of the government, and freely accepted homosexuality is the pinnacle of Right Wing government?

No that sounds like Debauchery. I wasn't there but Plato said as bad as it is the best Gov is a Democratic one. The Romans tweaked it to be a Republic but allowed Caesar to be above the law. Kinda like the POTUS 44 was above the law until POTUS 45.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Justoneman
Of course they are all more Gov type. Please read my post. When left or right have total control they have total governments.
Please just try and google left and right wing politics. Communist countries like USSR, China and Cuba are left wing governments. BBUUUTTT, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were far right people and governments.
THAT is why ANTIFA is a left wing organisation opposing Fascism, a right wing concept.

Well Google is wrong, can you imagine that?

I can.

ETA

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CitizenZero
I never heard of that word in my life. Did you coin it? I always thought libertarians were minarchist not anarchist.

They exist.

I'm 100% independent, and I don't care for the party apparatus on either side. The left and right are two feathers from the same ugly vulture as far as I'm concerned.

BUT.... If the right is such a champion of freedom:

1. Why are they always the ones telling others what they can and can't put in their bodies?

2. Why are they so concerned with what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

3. Why are so concerned with women marrying women and men marrying men?

4. Why are they always the ones telling us what kids shouldn't read in schools?

5. Why are they the ones trying to push a particular form of religion in schools?

Champions of freedom, my eye.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I'm 100% independent, and I don't care for the party apparatus on either side. The left and right are two feathers from the same ugly vulture as far as I'm concerned.

BUT.... If the right is such a champion of freedom:

1. Why are they always the ones telling others what they can and can't put in their bodies?

2. Why are they so concerned with what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

3. Why are so concerned with women marrying women and men marrying men?

4. Why are they always the ones telling us what kids shouldn't read in schools?

5. Why are they the ones trying to push a particular form of religion in schools?

Champions of freedom, my eye.

That is why I am here, to correct this misconception on the concept of the "Right". Please, consider:


Those who would take your freedoms are not the "Right" , the right stays out of ALL that.

Anyone who is on the "Right" is saying LIMIT the gov, that is it.

No paying for stuff for people, no paying for country's to hate you like Iran's leadership got paid to do.

ETA

and no demanding I approve, not just tolerate, approve of things being required of me because i think there are two Genders or there are 50 genders.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Justoneman

Not true. They're for total freedom. To the point that they would love to be able to murder those they identify as Nazis with no legal repercussion.

That means that they only want freedom for themselves. Mob mentality.

The OP hasn't learned much about the history of politics the US. Up until the passage of the 14th amendment, State sanctioned churches basically controlled who had the right to vote in each state. Conservatives have a long history of restrictive legislation. It wasn't that long ago when it was illegal for mixed race couple to marry, and more recently, same sex couples. Where Liberals have always sought to expand the rights of individuals, Conservatives have sought to restrict individual rights and equal treatment under the law. In the 1980's, Christian Right activists defended racial segregation under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Basically the Christian Right claimed that it was their right to discriminate and when they weren't allowed to do so, they claimed it was a violation of their religious freedoms.

I could go on and on but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.... First you have to have a mind to change.. .

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
The OP hasn't learned much about the history of politics the US. Up until the passage of the 14th amendment, State sanctioned churches basically controlled who had the right to vote in each state. Conservatives have a long history of restrictive legislation. It wasn't that long ago when it was illegal for mixed race couple to marry, and more recently, same sex couples. Where Liberals have always sought to expand the rights of individuals, Conservatives have sought to restrict individual rights and equal treatment under the law. In the 1980's, Christian Right activists defended racial segregation under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Basically the Christian Right claimed that it was their right to discriminate and when they weren't allowed to do so, they claimed it was a violation of their religious freedoms.

I could go on and on but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.... First you have to have a mind to change.. .

So that was supposed to be a sophisticate response? Bladerdash!

Calling people stupid is not how to make your debate a win. Implying I am a boorish cretin is not very nice. How dare you have the dubious audacity to doubt my veracity or to ignorantly blather about the level of IQ of posters in this thread!


Freedom from gov is Right leaning.

Freedom from God is sinning and that is between you and God. Certainly, not me and you. Fascists in the Church and the Islamic religion are still left leaning pro totalitarians.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Justoneman

They protest because they are forced to work within the confines of the law. Do you really think any of those tiki torch wielding fascists in Charlottesville would be left alive if there wasn't a police presence?

Oh that would had been splendid. That would had immediately led to ANTIFA being deemed a terrorist threat and their elimination shortly thereafter.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Right wing means little to no government laws over the citizens.

Except when it comes to women who don't want to have babies.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Justoneman
Right wing means little to no government laws over the citizens.

Except when it comes to women who don't want to have babies.

Doesn't matter why someone thinks they are cramming laws down peoples throats it is from the leftist playbook and will not end easily.

But it is a concern as to "aborting a baby" for the left and those of conservative values who see it that they would not seek to allow murder. This is the real question.

I agree with limited gov and would say some things are always going to be controversial like the pro life pro abortion sides.

I say let the women decide and don't ask for the gov to pay for yours if you wish to have one. God, not man decides if you are worthy for the rewards promised for the path anyone may choose.
In the states that hinder abortions are exercising their right to their own opinion on the matter. The same can be said for the states that don't hinder abortion. After the child is born even in some reports like Virginia law which clearly considered after birth abortions in the last year.

So, that one is probably not a good example for either side. It is just to emotional to all sides with something at stake.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You did not say "anarcho-libertarians". You said Libertarians. That is a fact.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Justoneman
Right wing means little to no government laws over the citizens.

That is patently false, both parties have grown government unceasingly. Libertarians want little to no government.

That's only because modern "right" politics have shifted left. A republican politician today is a democrat of yester year. Libertarians exist because of the shift. There is Center, Left, Right. Center believes a balance between left and right is ideal, right is the opposite of left, and left is the opposite of right. Libertarians are right, not left -- and they represent the starting position of the right, before they moved passed the center and into the left.

Democrat used to be left, now socialist is left. Socialists used to be considered extreme left... catch the drift?

The 2 party system is just one party both intending to lead us to totalitarian government. The "Right" and the "Left" are just locked in a faux fight that is ever drifting in tandem to the left, and that's by design. When we see people like bloomberg on stage saying we need to control guns because there is too much gun violence, thinking legislation is the answer, when the only reason gun violence exists is because of poverty is telling. The truth is neither the democrat or the republican in Washington want to address the elephant in the room, and that's billionaires make for an unsustainable society. You have democrats that hide behind being a capitalist, somehow thinking it's totally okay that Jeff Bezos gets to make $2,300 a second; 215 million a day, 1.5 billion a week, 78 billion a year. You can be a capitalist and realize that shouldn't be possible. Bezos can give all 130 billion of his dollars away in one day and be a billionaire again in four and three quarter days. He could literally give every person on earth 15.6 dollars a day and still not be broke. That's every single living person on the face of the planet.

Bloomberg doesn't care because he's a billionaire. Trump doesn't care because he's a billionaire. Left/Right are the same, and nobody wants to address the real problem with the country. We wouldn't have to worry about healthcare for all, we wouldn't have to worry about insurance or medical bills or anything if we just didn't allow billionaires, or capped billionaires to a "reasonable" [like any amount of billions is reasonable] level.

Would it change Bloombergs life to give 55 billion of his 64 billion away? No, he'd still have 9 billion left, which is 90 Reba McEntire's [95 milllion] worth of money left. And having 64 billion dollars, the dude won't even get his teeth cleaned because he's that cheap. He's got dentures on the top, and yellow rotted teeth on the bottom; and he's worth 64 billion. Can't have a president worth billions with rotting teeth in his mouth; I mean that's just crazy talk.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Justoneman
Right wing means little to no government laws over the citizens.

Except when it comes to women who don't want to have babies.

Doesn't matter why someone thinks they are cramming laws down peoples throats it is from the leftist playbook and will not end easily.

But it is a concern as to "aborting a baby" for the left and those of conservative values who see it that they would not seek to allow murder. This is the real question.

I agree with limited gov and would say some things are always going to be controversial like the pro life pro abortion sides.

I say let the women decide and don't ask for the gov to pay for yours if you wish to have one. God, not man decides if you are worthy for the rewards promised for the path anyone may choose.
In the states that hinder abortions are exercising their right to their own opinion on the matter. The same can be said for the states that don't hinder abortion. After the child is born even in some reports like Virginia law which clearly considered after birth abortions in the last year.

So, that one is probably not a good example for either side. It is just to emotional to all sides with something at stake.

This is a good example of a fake hot button issue designed to pit the normies against each other. There is no science to back anti-abortion laws, there is only philosophy. And truly a philosophy is an opinion, and to make abortion illegal is to legislate against an opinion.

It's objectively bad to be talking to you now, and then shoot you in the face mid sentence. It's not objectively bad to terminate a fetus, a fetus is not developed; it's just something that could be developed. Scientifically an embrio isn't much different than sperm and an egg prior to them meeting; and there is a huge difference between a fetus and a person.

To say that you believe abortion is murder is a valid opinion; but it's not objective and it's not backed by anything other than how you feel, so to legislate against it is to be totalitarian. The supreme court knows this, and that's why it's legal. Laws aren't about feelings, they are about facts. Republicans know abortion is actually a good thing in terms of population control, and population does HAVE to be controlled, they know they can't and won't ever over turn abortion, and they don't really want to; they just use it to pander to their bible belt base.

It's also not "Pro-Life" & "Pro Abortion." It's Pro Choice. You can be pro-choice, and not believe in abortion. Pro-Choice is about letting people choose for themselves how they want to live their lives. You can be pro-choice, and never have an abortion. Someone who has an abortion impacts your life none, with the exception of not needing more government assistance, and not over crowding your city with more people that nobody wanted to raise. Allowing a person to have an abortion does not affect your life. However, forcing people to not have a choice because of something that will never affect you, that does affect them. That IS totalitarian. And this is why even under a full republican government with republican justices, abortion is still legal, despite the politicians claiming to be against it to keep the civil injustice alive.

By the way; I'm definitely a republican, so don't just go off on me talking about how I'm some blah blah blah, this that or the other. I was raised roman-catholic went to church weekly and was in private catholic school. I understand the reason to separate church and state, and legislating based on religious morals and ignoring facts is dangerous. These are the same behaviors that lead to the Salem witch hunts or Galileo being locked in prison.

It's rather simple; you don't agree with abortion, than don't have them. You have no business telling other people what they can or can't do with their body or their finances. The second you force people to have kids they don't want is when you destroy families and create criminals as well as aid the over crowding of your cities, whilst simultaneously increase your own tax burdens. All because you want someone to conform their life to your way of thinking; you literally at that point are forcing people to live YOUR belief system, even if it's wrong. They aren't asking you to change how you live, or change what you believe. And everyone educated knows this.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Justoneman
Right wing means little to no government laws over the citizens.

Except when it comes to women who don't want to have babies.

Doesn't matter why someone thinks they are cramming laws down peoples throats it is from the leftist playbook and will not end easily.

But it is a concern as to "aborting a baby" for the left and those of conservative values who see it that they would not seek to allow murder. This is the real question.

I agree with limited gov and would say some things are always going to be controversial like the pro life pro abortion sides.

I say let the women decide and don't ask for the gov to pay for yours if you wish to have one. God, not man decides if you are worthy for the rewards promised for the path anyone may choose.
In the states that hinder abortions are exercising their right to their own opinion on the matter. The same can be said for the states that don't hinder abortion. After the child is born even in some reports like Virginia law which clearly considered after birth abortions in the last year.

So, that one is probably not a good example for either side. It is just to emotional to all sides with something at stake.

Which do you prefer; the government to pay for an 850$ procedure; or to kick in tens of thousands a year per kid that gets popped out into a welfare family that nobody wanted?

Also; I must note that anti-abortion laws ONLY AFFECT POOR PEOPLE. People who aren't poor are people who can go wherever it's legal and have them anyway. These laws are only to keep poor people stuck under the governments thumb; they aren't about protecting life, or even anything ethical or moral -- they are about forced indentured slavery.

And that's a fact that there is no counter-argument to. The more kids you have in poverty, the more government assistance you qualify for. The more you're going to vote for policies that are against your own self interest as long as the money keeps rolling in. It's only an avenue of control.

It's rather Ironic too; if abortion were illegal everywhere, all it would do is create more democrat voters. Because the democrats keep boasting the entitlements whilst maintaining pro choice, while the republicans keep trying to slash entitlements while attempting to ban abortion, less abortion means more poverty, more poverty means more families that need government assistance. It's just too perfect to be a coincidence. Pro-Life areas breed more left voters because of right policy banning their control of breeding. All the while, even if it abortion were illegal nationwide, anybody who wasn't poor could just fly to another country to have their abortion, so again -- it would only impede poor people from having them, in which case those same poor people would become even more poor and require even more government assistance, meanwhile those non-poor families can keep on keeping on, whilst being taxed to take care of the families that have ballooned because they couldn't afford to leave the country.

It's crazy that people don't see this as design; and then don't compare it to the right moving left and the left moving extremely left.

It's absolutely crazy to make opinion based laws in territory zones that people who can afford to leave temporarily can just avoid. It's like a penalty for being poor. And that's all it is, is a punishment to those indentured into poverty.

a reply to: SRPrime

I prefer NEITHER of those choices. I will take care of my family and seek to aid others if I am stable.

my sign would say:

"NO NANNY STATE POLITICS

HELP THOSE YOU CAN HELP"


Hot point issues are why we come to the table. But to ask for someone to pay for your abortion is OFF the table IMO.

Soft bigotry as your posts imply to me are how we start thinking we have to tell people what to do and that is NOT Libertarian.

Dont tread on me is meant to say all of us are free to do what we want. The theme of nanny state is not what we have here.