When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?

[dogtowner]

The original issue was whether the right or the left is more authoritarian, i.e., which one favors individual rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I say it depends on definition.

The real conservatives are those who would favor a government going back to Constitutional limits and the purpose outlined in the Declaration. They would support all of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, would be against nanny state issues, would be against the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture, and indefinite detention, would be against both the welfare state and the authoritarian state.

Real conservatives are an endangered species in Washington, may in fact be extinct. Like the ivory billed woodpecker, there is an unconfirmed sighting now and again, but nothing more.

and neither party represents conservatism as outlined above.

one reason im not gop. but as perfect is impossible you go with your smarter bet

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The right don't want small government

The rich do

The others get suckered by their vicious lies because the rich are nasty and their followers are stupid

 

[GenSeneca]

By the way, wouldn't you consider the way the Right black mailed President Obama in agreeing to keep the Bush tax cuts for all 2 years ago with the threat of putting the burden of higher taxes on the middle class, and the threat to kick the unemployed to the curb was a "use of force?"

No, it's not. President Obama did not face a threat of losing his life, liberty, or property by not doing what Republicans asked of him.

I really am open to suggestions here! Or do you think that the majority, who voted based on very specific policy proposals, should just say, "okay, now that we have voted for what we want, let's just have the others force THEIR policies, that we have clearly rejected, on us!"

The "suggestion" I have always had is that neither side initiate the use of force against others. There really isn't much to be partisan about when neither side is legally allowed to use force against the other. The surest way to eliminate the gridlock in Washington is for both sides to agree on the moral principle that nobody should use the power of government to force their own beliefs on others. The gridlock exists because we have the exact opposite.

 

[GenSeneca]

nice try but you already knew that using the brute force of government to do what you want is ok with the left.

The right as well, PLC is correct. Sadly, both sides seem to agree that using government to initiate force against the citizenry is a legitimate use of government power and only disagree about whose rights should be violated and who should benefit as a result of the violations.

 

[GenSeneca]

The right don't want small government

The rich do

The others get suckered by their vicious lies because the rich are nasty and their followers are stupid

There are plenty of "rich" radical leftists who, like you, want a totalitarian government... Are "rich" people only "nasty" when their opinions are different from yours? Do you consider statements you agree with to be "vicious lies" when said by a "rich" person? If you agree with something a "rich" person says, does that make you one of their "stupid" followers?

 

[Openmind]

No, it's not. President Obama did not face a threat of losing his life, liberty, or property by not doing what Republicans asked of him.


The "suggestion" I have always had is that neither side initiate the use of force against others. There really isn't much to be partisan about when neither side is legally allowed to use force against the other. The surest way to eliminate the gridlock in Washington is for both sides to agree on the moral principle that nobody should use the power of government to force their own beliefs on others. The gridlock exists because we have the exact opposite.

Come on, Gen! President Obama risks his life every day, just by being the President of the United States, and by being hated by a good 25% of crazies!

You are splitting hair. In fact, if President Obama's life had been specifically threatened by the Republicans on this issue, it would have been a lot simpler! But President doesn't fight just for himself, but for ALL the poor and the middle class! In some people's mind, threatening to throw vulnerable people under the bus consist a HUGE blackmail. One only dies once. . .but a whole country has thousands of people who depend on the economy.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There are plenty of "rich" radical leftists who, like you, want a totalitarian government... Are "rich" people only "nasty" when their opinions are different from yours? Do you consider statements you agree with to be "vicious lies" when said by a "rich" person? If you agree with something a "rich" person says, does that make you one of their "stupid" followers?

Well I don't want a totalitarian state and I'm not aware of any rich people who do either so you are spectacularly wrong (again)

I will concede that there are some decent rich people but in general they are vicious criminals who despise the poor

You only have to look at how the rich have behaved throughout history to see how grim they are.

And even today when regulated they still work hard to fuck the poor

What they are very good at is keeping power and using propaganda to make the poor think the rich are noble and the poor feckless

And people with weak minds flock to them

Like they do to religion which is another invention of cunning people to gain wealth and power

Funny isn't it how all religions require you to give money

And look how wealthy the various churches are

They are expert con men.

Like most rich people

And a seemingly endless supply of suckers like you defending them

 

[GenSeneca]

You are splitting hair.

Let's look at the definition,

Blackmail: Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.​

​

What "criminal act or discreditable information" were the Republicans threatening to "expose" about Obama and the Democrats during the fiscal cliff negotiations? I have seen no evidence that Republicans were actually threatening Democrats with blackmail. Let's look at another definition:

Hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.​

Use of the word "blackmail", with regard to the actions of Republicans during congressional negotiations, is therefore not meant to be taken literally but as hyperbole, i.e. political rhetoric by the Democrats and their supporters.

Now hopefully we can return to the discussion of using actual force to impose the will of one person or group onto the lives of others... Do you want to exercise the power of government to control the lives of others? Do you want others using that power to control your life? If you want to control the lives of others, then you have to accept that others can then also control your life. What this means is that your life no longer belongs to you but to whatever "collective" or individual is making the decisions. That reality creates the hyperpartisan political environment we have today, nobody wants the "other" side to get power and hold it over them, and the immoral use of force has been embraced as the "civilized" way of dealing with political disagreements.

 

[GenSeneca]

Well I don't want a totalitarian state and I'm not aware of any rich people who do either so you are spectacularly wrong (again)

Let's test it...

​

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever necessary.​

Please, I'll make this easy for you... Let's see if you can name just one "aspect" where you actually think it would be necessary for the state to intervene but you would still not argue in favor of, and actually argue against, any form of state intervention?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Nope I don't want that

Just a level playing field which thousands of years of right wing small government has failed to deliver as have free Market economics. They have delivered abject poverty to the masses and industrial scale abuse of the poor

You really shouldn't go into a Mcarthy induced frenzy every time you here the term socialism

You only react against it like you do because the rich have brainwashed you and you aren't sufficiently clear minded to question it

But I just want equal opportunity for everyone and fair play

That's all

Obviously as a Christian you don't want this

But then religion is the ultimate form of totalitarianism with its vicious dictator who cannot be questioned but requires blind allegiance on pain of torture

You want old fashioned conservatism with all its racism, homophobia, love of money and power etc

 

[GenSeneca]

I just want equal opportunity for everyone and fair play

That's all

I'm sure the description you just gave polls better in the public than what you're actually advocating - Slavery. You are advocating for the exploitation of government's legal monopoly on the use of force to coerce some people to labor, without compensation, for the benefit of others. That's not "equal" opportunity, it's slavery. That's not "fair" play, it's unfair and immoral. The Collectivist goals you seek to accomplish necessitate the existence of a totalitarian government capable of regulating every aspect of life 'necessary' to achieve the desired ends.

 

[dogtowner]

But I just want equal opportunity for everyone and fair play

That's all

so you are against affirmative action then nothing equal about that.

 

[Aus22]

I'm sure the description you just gave polls better in the public than what you're actually advocating - Slavery. You are advocating for the exploitation of government's legal monopoly on the use of force to coerce some people to labor, without compensation, for the benefit of others. That's not "equal" opportunity, it's slavery. That's not "fair" play, it's unfair and immoral. The Collectivist goals you seek to accomplish necessitate the existence of a totalitarian government capable of regulating every aspect of life 'necessary' to achieve the desired ends.

Although This has nothing to do with religion I agree with Dawkinsrocks on this, Unless Governments are strong people will be exploited. The gap betweenthe rich and poor is greatest in Capitalist countries like the USA and lesser in Socialist countries.

 

[TheJPRD]

Although This has nothing to do with religion I agree with Dawkinsrocks on this, Unless Governments are strong people will be exploited. The gap betweenthe rich and poor is greatest in Capitalist countries like the USA and lesser in Socialist countries.

Strong governments ensure that citizens won't be exploited????????? Strong governments usually exploit those who don't vote for them! Exploitation is fine with such governments, as long as it's the other side that's being exploited.

 

[GenSeneca]

Although This has nothing to do with religion I agree with Dawkinsrocks on this, Unless Governments are strong people will be exploited. The gap betweenthe rich and poor is greatest in Capitalist countries like the USA and lesser in Socialist countries.

It's amazing to me that you actually see a wealth gap as "exploitation" but see nothing exploitative about people abusing the power of government to legally impose their will on others by force, to legally steal money from some people and give it to others. In the case of a wealth gap, there's no force being employed against anyone... Some people will do better than others during the course of their lives - because life really isn't "fair".

It's immoral to initiate the use of force against others. Dawkins sees it as his "right" to use force against others but I will hold out hope that you can recognize that no individual, or group, has such a "right" and that it would be immoral of them to exercise such a "right" even if they believe it does exist.