• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why it's (almost) impossible to argue with the right

We're supposed to be free - ...
Free from monarchy and absolute tyranny. Total individual freedom wasn't part of the Founders' plan. Freedom to decide our own common good through a republic of states using democracy.
 
Of course not. Both are terrible.


Try not to lie so much.
excuse me? where did you get that line "Of course not. Both are terrible." because NO WHERE on this thread did I make THAT comment.
provide the comment # where I said THAT or retract your rebuttal!
 
excuse me? where did you get that line "Of course not. Both are terrible." because NO WHERE on this thread did I make THAT comment.
provide the comment # where I said THAT or retract your rebuttal!
He's quoting himself quoting you.

Of course not. Both are terrible.

How about we get as much as we can out of the government's control. The more we get out of government control, the less important voting becomes, which in turn would create fewer angry and miserable voters.
 
so he replied to me because of his own quote? oh geeze :rolleyes:
He was referencing an earlier reply, and he says it was him "No, in fact I specifically stated otherwise:" then the quote.
 
excuse me? where did you get that line "Of course not. Both are terrible." because NO WHERE on this thread did I make THAT comment.
provide the comment # where I said THAT or retract your rebuttal!
Here is our exchange:

Me: How could anyone believe that the principle of majority rule would do anything but make people angry and miserable?

You: so rule by the minority is preferable then in your estimation?

Me: Of course not. Both are terrible.


Then you referencing the above in post 95:

First of all, you are responding to a comment I made to someone else, but fair enough, that person quibbed

Suggesting, if you read the argument properly, that minority rule would be preferable.

The bold part is a deliberate lie on your part. I did not suggest that, I stated both are terrible, which you already knew, but lied about it anyway.
 
Here is our exchange:

Me: How could anyone believe that the principle of majority rule would do anything but make people angry and miserable?

You: so rule by the minority is preferable then in your estimation?

Me: Of course not. Both are terrible.


Then you referencing the above in post 95:



The bold part is a deliberate lie on your part. I did not suggest that, I stated both are terrible, which you already knew, but lied about it anyway.
it looked at first glance as you were responding to a comment I didn't make, now re-reading it, ok I was wrong, no need to get snarky about it, I am sure you have made the odd mistake or too :rolleyes:
 
War is ALWAYS a last resort. If you are down to killing people and breaking shit, you done ****ed up.
God damned right. Bitching about Fox and Trump, MSNBC and Biden sucks, but is still worlds better than war.
 
Last edited:
This is why:

The left only debates with itself: their view and their version of the right. Fighting with that is near impossible​

 
We hate each other, why not just peacefully go our seperate ways?? I regard you leftists as more than just wrong on issues. I see you as evil - just pure evil.
We are divided, deeply so but not because either of us is evil but because people of great wealth gain the political power to increase their wealth when we fight each other.

And Paul Weyrich is 1st among those people in seeking political power through divisiveness. Weyrich, first president of the Heritage Foundation, with Jerry Falwell shaped white evangelicals and conservative Christians into the Moral Majority and the anti-abortion movement.


He said in his book "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement":
"We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement."
"We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.."

To achieve power through division Weyrich said:

1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.
2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of "goodness" whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as "evil."
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.

In 1979 after successfully electing a very conservator Senator, Weyrich said,
"When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

Paul Weyrich was not alone in creating the hate. Although Rupert Murdoch, Phyllis Schlafly, David and Charles Koch, Richard Mellon-Scaife are all dead their legacy lives on in our useless fighting with each other.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but you leftists are just too ignorant and thick to understand the arguments of liberty.

You rejected America's founding years ago when your 'skulls of mush' were under psychological attack from your HS teachers and leftwing, antiAmerica, illiberal college professors.

You no more understand the principles of liberty than anyone else in the world. You have joined with them to fasten yourselves into a global fascist state - and can't fathom why anyone would object.

You're no different than the average German citizen in 1935. They couldn't be reasoned with either.
 

The right only debates with itself: their view and their version of the left. Fighting with that is near impossible​

By SOPHIA A. MCCLENNEN


For context it helps for you to read the whole article, but here are some snippets:

Not long after the attacks of September 11, 2001, my mom accused me of hating my country. By then she had fully fallen into the Fox News world, having married a far-right man late in life. But her position still surprised me. I was, after all, her own daughter. Didn't she have a basic idea of what I thought?

I explained that being against the war in Iraq, opposed to invading Afghanistan and all-out critical of just about everything the Bush administration did was not akin to hating my country. We went around in circles. But there was no convincing her that she held the wrong premise and that critique was not hatred.

That wasn't the only time in those years that I dealt with being told that I hated my country, but it certainly was the most frustrating. Again and again, then as now, those of us who make critical arguments about the United States, those of us who question conservative policies, those of us who point out examples of right-wing hypocrisies, aggressions, abuses and lies find ourselves in the strange position of having to argue against a warped understanding of what we advocate.

I don't think I fully captured the core of the problem until I recently read an essay in The Atlantic by Ibram X. Kendi on how there is no debate over critical race theory. As Kendi puts it:



Professors are trying to brainwash students to become socialists, feminists think all men are rapists, abortion rights defenders don't care about life, the gay community doesn't respect marriage, and so on. We can even see it in claims that young people are snowflake whiners.

They distort from the start and then take up all of your bandwidth in fighting their distortion. They don't just set the terms; they singlehandedly define them — for both sides.

It isn't just that the right argues with itself. It is also that they do it really loudly.

Take, for example, the recent scare over President Joe Biden's door-to-door vaccine strategy. The White House has noted that there is a growing disparity in communities receiving the vaccine. So, Biden proposes the notion that in some communities it might be beneficial to go door-to-door to spread information about vaccine safety and efficacy in order to encourage more people to get vaccinated.

Yet, that's not what the GOP hears. Instead they turn this plan into a sinister strategy, which according to GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn (N.C.), could be used to take all manner of items away from citizens: "They could then go door to door and take your guns. They could go door to door and take your Bibles."

You can't debate with someone who isn't even listening to your point.

This, of course, is why irony and satire do a better job of diving into the fray than reasoned critical discourse. Satire can take the absurdity of these right-wing faux debates and expose their spectacle.
Why is useless to argue with Canadians about US politics?

They don't have standing, and they don't have to live with the policies their useless opinions would engender.
 
I lived in Maine for 40 years and had a front row seat watching the paper industry destroyed mill by mill, town by town and the workers reduced to minimum wage or the dole. And it wasn't done by Democrats. It was done during 20 years of Republican rule interrupted by 4 years of Jimmy Carter, who was elected by evangelicals.

Nixon laid the Southern Strategy ground work with is latent racism and Reagan put it to work, he: weakened unions, deregulated business and banking, elevated shareholder primacy, cut social spending, ignored the needs of the working class, encouraged racism as a distraction, allowed the innovation and use of destructive financial instruments, weakened product and process innovation and maintenance. He created NAFTA (Clinton's Republican Congress introduced and passed it)

Workers all across America have a right to be resentful. But, instead of joining together to maintain unions, good education, jobs and a strong cultural identity they fell victim to the power seeking religious right in conjunction with multinational corporations which offered the cultural distraction and divisiveness of race, abortion, gay rights and religious victimology.

It was done deliberately and purposefully and it transferred wealth out of the middle and lower middle class and delivered it to the top 5% wealthiest in the US. The Democrats did not do this to America.
1631534973560.png
 
The Weimar Republic also had its problems. Guess who came along and promised to restore Germany's former glory?

Capitalism has done that. Corporations will logically seek cheaper labor and Republicans and neoliberals supported this for decades. Hmm, which side was defending capitalism the most?

Conservatives destroyed unions and spoiled baby boomers thought they could get along fine without them.

And what exactly do I deserve?
*********
1631537343869.png
*********
1631537376152.png
***********​
 
The principle being that the government killing people that kill people shows people that killing people is wrong?

No. The purpose is punishment.
 
Totally Useless Trivia: Children working in cotton and woolen mills are always barefoot to prevent explosions. Spinning and weaving creates fiber fluff. It accumulates on the floor and is suspended in the air. It's highly inflammable. The leather soles of shoes created static electricity which spark and set fire to the fluff. Hence the bare feet.
 
No. The purpose is punishment.

Therefore you believe in punishing people by having the government kill them.
 
If they have murdered someone? Yes.

At least you realize that the ~mistakes that have been made make capital punishment wrong.
 
At least you realize that the ~mistakes that have been made make capital punishment wrong.

Well, yes. This is why, in practice, I do not support the death penalty.
 
Well, yes. This is why, in practice, I do not support the death penalty.

In your perfect world, though, you're all for governments killing people. Capitalpunishmenttopia.
 
In your perfect world, though, you're all for governments killing people. Capitalpunishmenttopia.

In a perfect world, I'd have lots of other shit, too.

Where's my ****ing jetpack? Where's my flying car?
 
In a perfect world, I'd have lots of other shit, too.

Where's my ****ing jetpack? Where's my flying car?

Where are your killer robot street beasts?
 
Back
Top Bottom