Viking11
Banned
- Joined
- May 2, 2016
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 60
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.
2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)
3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.
4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.
2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)
3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.
4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.
Depends on your definition of 'worst'. But I'd say #1 by a slight margin over #4. That's because I would not do well in a society run by them. I'm gay and an atheist.
Same here.
So then as a "liberal", you're just fine with forcing a baker to bake a cake for brothern??
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.
2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)
3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.
4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.
#5 Liberals.
Virtually every law liberals write takes freedom away from someone. Their party is of dominance and control of the masses, either by carrot of sword.
I have no problem with any of them. Any one working towards making the country better(even if I disagree with what better is) is ok in my book. Maybe if we spent less time worrying about which group is worse, we could spend more time worrying about how to come together to solve problems. Just a thought...
I am not real big on forcing a baker, but I have no problem with including a no discrimination requirement for a business. If the business wants to force the individual baker, that is up to them.
Are you saying the government should force the business to force the baker, if the baker is simply an employee; or, are you saying the business inandof itself should have a nondiscrimination policy and force the employee under penalty of discharge?
The first case is again using government force - improperly and unconstitutionally (IMO); the second case is okay, but not the way I would do it.
If I owned a business in that situation I wouldn't refuse the business, nor would I force the employee - I would try to find another way. Have another employee handle the matter, or if possible handle it myself. Accommodate everyone. I think that is just good business and good relations.
Liberals don't see things that way. They want a one size fits all, top-down government force policy - which usually exempts themselves, and certainly the lawmakers themselves are exempt. You don't see Washington's politicians coping and groping with the evils of Obamacare; unions in league with the Democrats were exempted, etc. Typical of authoritarian rule, there are two sets of rules - one for the unfortunate masses, and none for the elites and favored.
Nope, did not say that. Might want to read again, this time for comprehension.
I am not real big on forcing a baker, but I have no problem with including a no discrimination requirement for a business. If the business wants to force the individual baker, that is up to them.
No need to be a smart*** - you're only perpetuating the stereotype of liberals.
This sentence implies government "requirement". Perhaps you should have said from a business (which would show that the policy originates with the business itself) instead of for a business (which implies that the policy is being directed to the business by an outside force).
The second sentence states that the business can do what it wants.
No comprehension problem; rather, poor sentence structure on your part.
The stereotype that we are smarter and more accurate with what we say?
If you do not understand the difference between regulating a business, and regulating a person, that really is not my problem.
Good grief you people are something... if you force a business to do something, you are forcing the person to do something. Duh!!!
So your original statement that say you're not a fan of forcing someone to do something against their free will is BS, right??
As with all liberals, you see nothing wrong with using government force to impose your views and will on others. It's disgusting... every bit as disgusting as the christian that crams the bible down peoples throats with the force of law.
1. Religious fundamentalists: the most socially conservative of the four groups, their top priorities is to promote 'morality' and make America a 'Christian' nation, outlawing things like homosexuality, pornography and abortion.
2. Neo-conservatives: believe that America has a moral obligation to spread freedom, capitalism and democracy across the world (or so they say.)
3. Corporatists: they are corrupt, greedy, and have no political ideology and no principles, and just do everything the elitist donor class tell them to do, disregarding democracy.
4. Populist Nationalists: the most economically left-wing of the 4 groups, they are more likely to believe in things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich. They are very xenophobic. They are also isolationists, and want to close the borders, implement anti-free trade policies, and get out of the United Nations.
Only if the business is only one person.
I am not forcing any one to do anything. You have options. If you do not believe in pasteurized milk, don't sell milk. If you do not believe in health regulations, do not open a restaurant. If you oppose gun rights, don't open a gun shop.
They're nasty, nasty people... look at these mooks on college campuses, and attacking Trump supporters, and refusing to serve them food, etc.
They can FORCE others to do their bidding, but then turn right around and engage in their own form of discrimination and call it "social justice".
Neocons are almost as bad, but liberals are really sick people. They deserve every bad thing they're bringing on our society and themselves.
If you really think that all liberals are bad people, you really need to adjust your attitude.
No. The liberal mantra is "if you oppose gun rights, then take all the guns away."If you oppose gun rights, don't open a gun shop.
No. The liberal mantra is "if you oppose gun rights, then take all the guns away."
...except for the criminals, gang members, and school shooters.
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?