I am done with your bullshit

You still have your soul. Which you won’t, if you sell it to spread a big tent that won’t stand anyway.

There are some issues where there is room for honest disagreement. There are some where there is not. The former is like the arrangement of the furniture in the building. The latter is the foundation of the building.

Fair enough. What would you consider issues where there is no room for honest disagreement?

For example, consider the socialist Social Security system, a project of the National, not State governments, which FORCES everyone to pay into a central fund … from which they may get nothing back at all.

Should a purged and pure Republican Party come out for the dismantling of the Social Security system? (By giving back to everyone the money they have put in, of course.)

You won’t have anything if the Democrats get what they want and turn the United States into socialist dictatorship where free speech and most every other right is firmly denied. These people mean business.

Here’s the problem. The position you are espousing, the idea that you want to support ideas that agree with what you think are correct, without compromise can only be achieved though suppression and force. Not everyone is going to agree and trying to create a world where people are forced to (right or left) will only end in something like a dictatorship.

One could write the same response for the leadership and the thought police in the Democrat Party, @csbrown28. The cancel culture and de-platforming are used to kill decent or any exchange of ideas that don’t match the left’s orthodoxy.

Which is why I didn’t single out the right on this issue. Notice I put “(right or left)”?

I made a post on racism today that most of the kinds of radicals on the left you speak of would probably like to “cancel”, yet there it is.

We’ll put your theory to the test. Given what you’ve said Bill Maher should be off the air soon. Let’s see what happens…Ok?

He might be off the air eventually. The left has to gut Fox News first. CNN has a campaign right now to do that.

Stalin had to kill off Lenin first. Some people say he did kill Lenin. Then he moved on to Trotsky on the left. After that he killed his rivals on the right until he had complete control.

Isn’t Stalin referred to lovingly by Democrats as “Uncle Joe?”

I think that was more a nickname than anything else. FDR figured he could outsmart him. He couldn’t, especially when his health started to go. In FDR’s defense he didn’t know if the atomic bomb as going to work or not, so that’s why he gave Stalin the green light to attack Japan after the Germans were defeated.

Truman saw Stalin for what he was. A cold blooded killer and dictator.

Sounds like what the democrats deep down want more than anything. As long as he’s killing anyone that disagrees with them

The Democrats would like the control over people and every aspect of their lives that Stalin had. They would really like to jail their opponents for indefinite periods of time. This is a new phenomenon for them after they lost the 2016 election.

They think that they have the moral high ground over everyone else because they have been taught that by their teachers and little professors since kindergarten.

They would like think that they could achieve this without violence and only need to use lies and propaganda, but if violence is necessary, they will go for it.

The Democrats will get what they want if the Repubs effectively turn into Democrats on critical issues in their “big tent” effort. Whether we get totalitarianism from the Dems or the copycat Dems, it’s ultimately all the same crap.

1 The gun issue, free speech, freedom of religion, government social programs (at least at the Federal level), abortion, and pervert enabling are five issues that come immediately to mind.
2 I think it should, but I know it won’t happen. The culture has become addicted to it.

I said:

That’s not forcing anyone. As to compromise, win or lose, some things shouldn’t be compromised. And the dictatorship is coming because the other side’s idea of “compromise” is to take a position a million light years to the left, and “compromise” by agreeing to meet “only” a half million light years to the left. They tried that trick with one of the COVID stimulus bills. I don’t expect my position to survive in this world. But I hope I’m man enough to die with it than sell my soul to feed others to the alligator first.

Of old age, or with a gun in your hand?

But what if that is the direction that most people in this country wish to go. Why should the majority be ruled by the minority?

@Fantasy_Chaser – as I understand it, you are against any form of Social Security, any form of gun control (that is, anyone should be able to own any weapon they like, up to and including nuclear weapons and nerve gas), any form of abortion for any reason whatsoever – and I assume that would include the ‘morning after’ pill, which aborts a sperm embedded in an egg. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘pervert-enabling’ but are you in favor of laws that outlaw homosexual acts? And what about school prayer? (In state-run schools?)

Also: would you ever vote for a Republican candidate who favored, or at least did not openly oppose, say, Social Security? Or do you think people should only support candidates with the correct positions on all the above issues?

Social Security is not a good financial deal. Today a young person could do much better if they put the taxes they and their employer paid into a privately run annuity. Still, a lot of people wouldn’t do that, and some couldn’t afford to do it.

The question remains, what does a society do with its old people who can no longer work, and who have no financial means? I guess a radical conservative or libertarian would say, “Let them starve; let them depend upon their family; or let them depend on private charities.” The latter solutions might sound reasonable but they hardly foolproof. A lot of kids don’t pay any attention to their older relatives any more, and funding private charities to the required levels would be impossible at the required levels.

Like it or not, a compassionate society must provide for those who are vulnerable. It is an obligation that separates a decent society from an inhuman one. The only real debate is over who deserves help and how much.

If the issues that @Doug1943 have laid out are true for @Fantasy_Chaser are accurate, I guess really would not care to see his fantasies come true. In their way, they are as extreme as what the radical socialists want to do.

1 I’m not going to fight with a gun. But I am going to keep calling out what I see as crap.

2 Okay, how the crap does-

-equal a minority ruling the majority? If they aren’t coming in, they aren’t being ruled. An invitation isn’t a gunpoint.

1 Correct.
2 No, not really. I don’t want the guy down the street to nukes or the like anymore than I like governments having them (which is not to say that I believe the U.S. should unilaterally disarm). I lean generally toward small arms only for the private citizen. But if such restrictions are done, they should be done by amending the 2nd Amendment (although any such attempt now would be scary) instead of doing an end run around it as the left has done.
3 Correct.
4 I don’t mean preventing consenting adult perverts from engaging in their perversion; I mean not enabling it. Examples are homosexual so-called “marriage,” forcing businesses and nonprofits to cater to them, and allowing perverts in the restrooms, etc. of the opposite sex.
5 I don’t believe in state run schools period. I think they’re proving more and more to be a fiasco (not to mention government overreach).
6 I’m honestly not sure where I would draw the line when voting. Ideally, yes. Realistically, I know it won’t happen. So again, I don’t know.

1 Like

Given the rhetoric there are a lot of ;people on the right willing to to just that. Turn violent to accomplish their political goals.

I’m not just talking about that. We have statehouses red states where consistently republicans make up most of the legislature, yet most of the voters vote Democrat, which is achieved by gerrymandering.

I’m asking, why should the minority get to rule the majority?

Okay, a refreshingly straightforward reply. Thanks.

For whatever it’s worth, my own position on 2. (gun control) is: the intent of the Founding Fathers was, I believe, that the citizens should not be outgunned by the government. (I know some people try to maintain that it was just a way of making sure the military would have the human resources it needed for a war, but I don’t think that’s really accurate.) But with the growth of military technology, it’s not practical to allow anyone to own any weapons system he or his friends can afford. I think the answer – not pratical now – is to greatly expand, on a voluntary basis, the ‘State Defense Force’ – to make it very easy, and in no way a financial or career burden, for ordinary citizens to, as part of a state-supervised group, have access to seroius weaponry. Of course, nuclear weapons and A10s would still be out of reach.

As it is, every patriot under 35 who has not done his/her military service should enlist in the National Guard. However, this puts enough of a burden on people that only a small percentage will. I believe that the possibility of being sent overseas to some snakepit country to bring democracy to them is probably a thing of the past, but … especially with the Democrats in power – not impossible.

I love the photo of a National Guard Humvee in Baghdad, with the words, “One weekend a month my ass!” written on it.

There are two kinds of welfare state measure: one takes money from Bill and gives it to Joe. The other forces Joe to do something sensible with part of his money when he can earn it. The latter measure can be tweaked in all kinds of ways. I wouldn’t oppose an opt-out option, so long as it wasn’t available on a whim, and so long as the would-be opter-out was made aware of the risks. I also wouldn’t oppose some choice as to where my forcibly-collected for-your-own-good money was put, for instance, the right to put some of it in investments of my choice, while the rest went into an insurance pool. We don’t let eight year olds make life-affecting decisions, and people don’t flip from children to adults when they turn 18. (In fact, my motto is “Don’t trust anyone under thirty.”)

I don’t know much now about the American education system, but when I went through it, we were taught NOTHING about money, investments, how interest can accrue over time, how to get a mortgage (even what a mortgage was), starting a business, taxation, etc. But if I were running things, these would be a a central part of the curricululm. Of course, some parents will pass this information on to their children, but one of the points of education should be to level up.