Liberals… those people that vote criminals in office and support them during 8 years of bomb raids, starvation, and mass slavery campaigns and then, when hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead and enslaved, they turn to the guy who tries to stop it all and blame him for all of it-
except that Liberals never really count an Arab life as a human life.
“Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was “worth it”…wins Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama”
Again, to all you scumbag sickening evil whore of satan liberals: may the deaths that happened due to your votes haunt your miserable entitled lives. You don’t deserve anything but to reap what you sowed.
I don’t hate liberals, and consider myself liberal on some issues.
The problem with many liberals, and practically all mainstream liberals, is they fervently believe anything to the right of a Cruz, Jeb, Kasich or Rubio on some issues, is a homophobe, racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi and so on…Hitler, Mussolini, Freddie Kruger, Jason, Michael Myers or the devil himself.
They’re every bit as bad as the folks who believe everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is the next Lenin, Stalin or Mao.
Well actually they don’t believe any of that tripe, it’s just a scare tactic to win more votes.
There’s nothing racist about deporting illegal immigrants, banning immigration from terror prone nations, or even banning Muslim immigration specifically, perhaps religionist, but not racist.
There’s nothing sexist about supporting Brett Kavanaugh, anymore than there’s anything sexist about supporting alleged rapist Bill Clinton, there’s nothing sexist about calling a woman horse face, anymore than there’s anything sexist about making fun of a man’s hair or skin tone, there’s nothing sexist about being a womanizer, plenty of democrats were womanizers, from JFK, to Bill Clinton, and there’s nothing sexist about banning late-term abortion, the following nations have:
12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)
13 weeks (Italy)
14 weeks (Austria, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania)
18 weeks (Sweden)
And if you’re a white separatist, or you want to keep your nation majority white, or Christian or whatever, that doesn’t make you a white supremacist, you don’t have to believe your people are superior to want to separate.
Israel, South Korea and Japan only want Jewish, Korean and Japanese immigration respectively, but no one accuses them of Jewish, Korean or Japanese supremacism.
And if you’re a white supremacist (I don’t consider myself one for the record), that doesn’t make you a fascist or Nazi, you can be be a white supremacist, and still a civil libertarian, fiscal conservative and pacifist, all things antithetical to fascism and Nazism (white supremacism doesn’t necessarily = authoritarianism, nor violence).
Most of the founding fathers of the US were white separatists and/or supremacists, but other than that, their politics bore little-no resemblance to the fascist and Nazi regimes of early-mid 20th century Europe.
If liberals keep crying wolf, when a real Hitler or Mussolini finally does make their appearance on the world stage, no one will believe them, everyone will think to themselves: gee, another Hitler or Mussolini, what’s the big deal, plenty of them have been elected already, and things turned out fine.
And just because the KKK show up at one of your rallies, doesn’t mean you’re Hitler, anymore than anarchists, communists, Muslim brotherhood or nation of Islam showing up at one of your rallies means you endorse them.
Democrats refuse to have an open, honest conversation with the American people about immigration, instead they bully, guilt trip, shame, slander, smear and threaten anyone who dares to.
They refuse to address the real concerns the American people have about immigration, instead they talk down to them like they’re children or ignorant, unwashed peasants, all the while having the audacity to accuse Republicans of authoritarianism and elitism.
And now they’re every bit as guilty of conspiracism as Republicans, if there was anything to this whole Russian collusion thing, surely the CIA, FBI and NSA would’ve uncovered something by now.
Conservative - one who cherry picks a single person, arbitrarily proclaims them symbolic of a political party, then assumes the sample set of one is exemplary of everyone who describes themselves as liberal, and this is done for the purpose of demonizing a position which is too sound to be defeated intellectually.
Yup, the stench of vitriol is indicative that a conservative is near.
The world is becoming increasingly more liberal as the callous old codgers die off… and it’s going to suck to be you in the midst of that lol
Democrats constitute the majority of americans, so how can the majority refuse to have a conversation with themselves?
People are increasingly moving away from your position because they disagree with it and your side hasn’t provided any compelling reason to change their minds.
Maybe, but they honestly do not need to.
The stats insist they are ignorant. It was the founding fathers’ bright idea to give the peasants power, but the problem is the peasants aren’t educated. And as they get educated, they move away from republicanism.
Both sides do it, but philosophically, power is consolidated with republicans because the socialization of power is spreading the power thin among the people vs concentrating it in the hands of a few. The labels don’t matter; what matters is the philosophy.
They feel they are working for a righteous cause, so they demonize the opposition, but having a righteous cause is antithetical to their own philosophy.
Righteousness; the assertion of good and evil; the belief that some things are incontrovertibly true, independent of evidence, is the dogmatism underpinning republicanism.
Republicanism is not the same as democracy. Republicanism includes guarantees of rights that cannot be repealed by a majority vote.[7]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica … ted_States
That’s dogma. “This _____________ is true regardless what anyone else thinks about it.”
Because they have nothing to do with the machinery of the economy. In order for the economy to function as a monetary system, there must be redistributive mechanisms in place; hence the focus on class. The economy must function properly for the benefit of society.
Race, religion and sex have no association with economics, but class does.
See? You’re challenging the facts. Why is it only you who is contesting this? If anyone could show that domesticated animals existed anywhere else, the theory would be gone, poof!
The only contestable point remaining is whether or not the domesticated animals made any difference. I think they did and I think you think that too, which is why you’re still not accepting that domesticated animals didn’t exist elsewhere.
But the cold was an advantage that selected for intelligence because one had to use wits to survive it. Overcoming cold is a surmountable challenge because clothing and shelter and food storage is possible for primitive people to pursue, but the heat is an insurmountable problem that could only be addressed with biological adaptation, such as the ability to sweat.
People in the heat cannot overcome the heat with intelligence, but are selected for the ability to run after prey or otherwise find the food that cannot be domesticated or farmed.
Essentially, all one could do in africa was run after an animal until it became heat-exhausted. None were fit for domestication, probably because migration was essential to follow the water and rains. There is no problem that intelligence could solve for them, so it wasn’t selected for.
On the other hand, farming was something people could get better at by being smarter. All the food led to big communities, politics, science, philosophy.
If you want to select for intelligence, provide a problem that can be overcome with the implementation of intelligence and supply the extra nutrition to power it.
They stumbled upon it, settled, then became stronger and smarter and more able to defend it.
Me neither.
I guess there is merit to regulating who comes in and who doesn’t, but if a few slip by, I don’t see the big deal. There are always acceptable losses with any scheme.
Anyway, the thing that got this whole debate started was the woman complaining that she’s told to go home when she’s born in the US. Or Trump saying a judge shouldn’t be a judge because he’s Mexican when he was born in NJ.
I think this is less about legality and more about a war on brown people without regard to where they were born. And I think a lot of people are suspicious about it like me. I mean, they never complain about illegal Russian immigration or possible Canadians flooding the border. Even if they are illegal, no one would care because they’re white.
If we don’t take advantage of cheap labor, then some other country will and because they did, they will be ahead of us. Offshoring to china was the best thing for everyone: it provided jobs to impoverished people and supplied americans with products cheaper than they could make for themselves. The problem was the republicans not distributing the profits properly.
I’m just saying that if korea starts beating-up japan, it is not in our best interest to let that happen. But if Russia wants to reclaim Ukraine, why should we care?
Why should they have it extremely hard? Because seeing them suffer makes you feel good. It’s not their welfare you care about since you’re making it extremely hard on them. It’s not economically viable to specifically make it extremely hard on your customers. All you care about is punishing people and that was my point from the beginning. It’s the “baby video” I posted often on here where the kid is more concerned that the other kid gets less, even if it means he/she also gets less. youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU
Conservatives are willing to hurt themselves so long as it means they can hurt someone else more. I have yet to meet a conservative who didn’t.
You can ban theft because not many people want to steal.
You can’t ban booze because too many people want to drink.
You can prohibit economic exploitation by simply putting the taxes back how they were for 50 years. Problem solved; go play golf. FDR had it figured out a long time ago and most of our problems are simply a result of undoing what he did.
Oh hell. $10/hr is no kind of life and you may as well not bother plugging 10 holes when you have enough fingers for two. Essentially we’re born into a world where we’re presented with two options: go make someone rich or starve. A true independent would never support that. Talk about authoritarianism, you’re proposing people participate in your system or face death as alternative. Where the hell is the free choice? You can’t compel people to work and claim free-market. Actually, the “free” market is reliant upon the compulsion to work in order to feed it the profits it needs.
A true free market wouldn’t have compulsions to make a profit and compulsions to avoid starvation as essential mechanisms, but would be totally voluntary and free from compulsion from any perspective. The only way to make work voluntary is to make it nonessential.
Yes that’s true. I figured you’d point that out.
I can see that. The engineer is creative in a different way. Athletes can also be creative. There are 9 forms of intelligence blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-inte … fographic/ I suppose we can be creative with respect to each of them.
lol
Maybe they were naturally gifted. Mozart could play song backwards while carrying on a conversation and from just one hearing of the song. They might not have had to think too hard to create that music
If republicans are absolutely committed to liberty, no matter how impossibly absurd, democrats are absolutely committed to equality, no matter how impossibly absurd (nowadays more so racial, religious and sexual equality than class equality unfortunately), whereas altho I have my preferences (at times and in places), I recognize multiple moral values, from liberty and equality, to equity (fairness) and fraternity (brotherhood, culture, ethnicity, race), making me an ethical pluralist, I’m also an epistemological pluralist.
everything must function properly for the benefit of society, family, must function properly, eating and drinking, must function properly.
Race, religion and sex have implications for, not only economics, but education, healthcare, family, politics, law and so on down the line, and economics, education and so on have implications for race, religion and sex, for there’s meaningful differences between the races, religions and sexes.
When the proofs for x theory over y are as plain as day, scientists, tend to go with x, however, when the proofs for x theory over y are murky, rather than suspending judgment, or attempting to synthesize x and y, scientists tend to go with the more PC and Profitable theory, as well as the simpler, more attractive one.
While I doubt the theory is meritless, it may be (sub)consciously intentionally or mistakenly exaggerated.
And are you sure the theory is uncontested? Maybe it has some detractors that just haven’t gotten any book deals.
Sometimes science is cut and dried, but oftentimes it’s highly interpretative and contestable, with multiple theories vying for dominance. This’s especially true of social science and even more especially of metanarratives.
Right, natural selection made Europeans smarter and stronger in many ways, which had something, if not everything to do with our success.
They were smart enough to know a good thing when they saw it, so they stuck around, and fought like hell for it.
More like a dozen million.
I don’t think Americans randomly go up to her and tell her to leave.
She probably goes around insulting Americans, telling them their ancestors stole and stumbled into everything they have, and so they need to give it all to non-whites.
Secondly, the average Canadian speaks English, shares many cultural values with Americans, and is more affluent, educated and less crime prone than your average Hispanic, and so less of a threat. While it’s necessary to vet both Hispanics, and Canadians before permitting entry, it’s more necessary to vet Hispanics. And while the Canadian population is about as crime prone as the American, it’s still better for America if only law abiding, productive Canadians are permitted. Unproductive Canadian criminals are not America’s responsibility, they’re Canada’s.
Right, if you can prevent worker exploitation, you can prevent welfare exploitation.
Again, it is wrong to give the abled something for nothing, and It is wrong to let people on the dole have kids, so we’ll prohibit it, and we’ll just get tougher and tougher on them as necessary to prohibit it.
So what are we driving at here? That liberals are dogmatic and consequently refuse to discuss their perspective? Dogma is the core of conservatism.
And all are petering out. It was the older rural people who went for those populist notions and they’re dying by the day while young liberals are turning voting age. All that’s left to do is decide if you want to join the winning side or go down with the ship.
Btw I was looking at my local school class photos on twitter and while the older students are 70/30 white/mexican, the kindergarten photos are nearly 100% mexican. I am unable to extrapolate how life will be in a decade when uneducated rednecks are replaced by educated wetbacks.
What I’m saying is that liberals base fact on consensus, so if the majority of people want to change a law, there is a mechanism to change it. But with conservatives, if someone made a law 200 years ago, there is nothing we can do about it because it’s dogmatically held regardless of what anyone thinks about it since what is right and wrong is not a popularity contest.
Allegiance to the constitution is allegiance to article 5 which states the constitution can be changed with a majority vote, so appeals to the constitution are irrelevant when determining right and wrong. IOW, the constitution cannot underpin gun rights because if the constitution were always assumed true, then article 5 would be false. It’s like a “this statement is false” kinda thing where if the statement is true, then it’s false and if it’s false, then it’s true.
So a democracy is the only way that makes sense because we first need to decide if owning a gun is a right and then decide if the constitution should be amended by popular vote, which is the constitutional thing to do. IOW, there are no rights that cannot be repealed by majority vote and to assume so is antithetical to the constitution.
That’s just how the world works. No one thanks me for the good things I do, but they jump all over me when they disagree. All feedback is negative. I guess it’s presumed that you know you’re superior, so you don’t need congratulations for it, but they think you need to be aware of the bad things.
