Stephen50right
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Are you sure? That's a pretty high bar.
But, it just might make the cut.
I stated my point, and it was crystal clear. That's the beauty of my side, the conservative side...we can state a lucid point in one or two sentences. Something that liberals ramble on for many paragraphs to try to do, and still they come to a muddled conclusion.
It's your prerogative to call it "stupid" but without any focused reply to the specific point, it just makes you look like a deer in headlights. A similar look you probably had on election night 2016. :lol:
Assuming for this post's discussion that "Big Brother nanny state" means surveillance of and at least some degree of restriction on the people living in the USA, along with systems that provide stuff to people who can't (or won't?) provide it for themselves...in general terms.Bernie fanatics can call him anything they wish. The bottom line is Bernie's policies, Democratic Party policies, and Communist China policies are designed for a Big Brother nanny state. The paths to get there may be a bit different, but the goal is the same. And that goal's end will never result in freedom and liberty for the people.
Sanders and the Democratic Party are correct to be concerned (although I think the Democratic Party is more concerned about it as a threat to their power). Sanders, I think, is opposed to it because he considers politically-involved religion a threat to freedom and liberty.Churches in a free society, not afraid to express political views, is an example of freedom and liberty and that's what Trump supports...and Bernie, the Democratic Party, and Communist China don't like that one bit.
I'm glad you stated that. If liberals begin to like what I say, then I know I'm doing something wrong.
Stephen50right said:I stated my point, and it was crystal clear. That's the beauty of my side, the conservative side...we can state a lucid point in one or two sentences.
Stephen50right said:Something that liberals ramble on for many paragraphs to try to do, and still they come to a muddled conclusion.
Stephen50right said:The bottom line is Bernie's policies, Democratic Party policies, and Communist China policies are designed for a Big Brother nanny state. The paths to get there may be a bit different, but the goal is the same. And that goal's end will never result in freedom and liberty for the people.
Here is your point, or points:
Assuming for this post's discussion that "Big Brother nanny state" means surveillance of and at least some degree of restriction on the people living in the USA, along with systems that provide stuff to people who can't (or won't?) provide it for themselves...in general terms.
How can you seriously be contending that the goals of China, the Democratic party, and Sanders are the same? Leaving aside what they say, which I have no doubt is laced with lies (in the case of China and the Democratic party, at least)...their actions indicate differing goals, if nothing else does.
For example, I seriously doubt that the DNC is going to advocate for free public colleges any time soon, because their power stems from keeping most of the population in debt and working hard, and the oligarchs that run things on top and passing them a sliver of their profits. Republicans have many if not all of the same masters (and maybe a mistress or two, but frankly most of the oligarchs are old and male).
China may already have free higher education, in some cases - I don't know.
Sanders, I think, proposed it because it makes sense from every angle I've looked at it from. Rather than give young people the option of either working low-paying jobs for life or indebting themselves for decades (or life) to get slightly higher pay, we offer free higher education to those who can handle it. The "rising tide lifts all boats" cliche comes to mind.
Sanders and the Democratic Party are correct to be concerned (although I think the Democratic Party is more concerned about it as a threat to their power). Sanders, I think, is opposed to it because he considers politically-involved religion a threat to freedom and liberty.
I am personally highly concerned about churches being allowed to involve themselves in politics in any way.
As I see things, that way lies defacto, if not dejure, religious government. Humans have tried that. Hell, they're doing that in various places around the Middle East right now. It really isn't a good idea.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/814645/china-church-religion-crackdown-shuangmiao-henan/amp
Just a peek into the eventually of a Bernie-led America.
Real news like this happening everywhere while our media fixates on a made-up scandal that is running on fumes.
This has absolutely no connection to Bernie Sanders.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/814645/china-church-religion-crackdown-shuangmiao-henan/amp
Just a peek into the eventually of a Bernie-led America.
Real news like this happening everywhere while our media fixates on a made-up scandal that is running on fumes.
Bernie fanatics can call him anything they wish. The bottom line is Bernie's policies, Democratic Party policies, and Communist China policies are designed for a Big Brother nanny state. The paths to get there may be a bit different, but the goal is the same. And that goal's end will never result in freedom and liberty for the people.
Churches in a free society, not afraid to express political views, is an example of freedom and liberty and that's what Trump supports...and Bernie, the Democratic Party, and Communist China don't like that one bit.
Except for Islam, which deserves no religious protection, right?
Yeah, I noticed. I just had to defend my man Bernie, even if it is against a bad propagandist.
Technically he just proposed and implemented on the fly a religious test that directly goes against article 6.
This also excludes about 70 percent of Americans from holding office.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ws0jcezpQws
Tolerance?
Yeah, you defend your man Bernie. He may not be quite communist China, but he's a radical leftist socialist all the way!
Except for Islam, which deserves no religious protection, right?
You say that like its a bad thing.
It is.
Why is that? What actual positions of Bernie's do you find harmful to the country? Please be specific. Political name calling is too easy and means nothing.
The problem with Islam as you should know, is that it is more than just a religion. Islam is also a political system called Sharia Law which does not accept any other form of government.
China destroying Christian churches is horrific and unacceptable. While if it was mosques with Islamists espousing violence and mass murder, then appropriate action against them would be justified, as it would be anywhere.
Free free free, everything for free. The man is full of ****. But he's been that way for 30 years at least.
That is not specific. And it is inaccurate as well.
No, that pretty much covers it. That's why he had the young people.
I stated my point, and it was crystal clear. That's the beauty of my side, the conservative side...we can state a lucid point in one or two sentences. Something that liberals ramble on for many paragraphs to try to do, and still they come to a muddled conclusion.
It's your prerogative to call it "stupid" but without any focused reply to the specific point, it just makes you look like a deer in headlights. A similar look you probably had on election night 2016. :lol:
Islam is a religion. How it is manifested politically does not change that fact. There are countries where Roman Catholicism is the state religion. Religions have no control over how they are manifested politically.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?