Roe v Wade overturned.

[Captain Red Eye]

the difference (as i see it) between the right and left is best explained this way - the left/liberals want people to be ALLOWED to live their lives with minimal interference and maximum freedom. they do not FORCE right wing/religious people to live like that. they are free to sit at home wearing sack-cloth and rub ashes in their hair every day if they wish. nobody tries to force religious folks to smoke dope, have wild sex, or get an abortion. but, the right wing/religious insist that EVERYONE should be restricted to THEIR idea of "freedom" as defined by their personal "morals" biglaugh and religious beliefs. convince me that i'm wrong. i'll wait.

Both Republicans and Democrats are willing to use government to push their agenda. That is the stated and actual purpose of a political party and politics in general. Politics and freedom are antonyms.

Pushing a political agenda on an otherwise peaceful person that is disinterested in political agendas is not a way to allow THEM to live their lives with minimal interference and maximum freedom.

Neither Democrats or Republicans embrace actual maximum freedom with minimal interference.

 

[nepalnt21]

Are you actually reading this thread ??

i forgot, you guize think of everything in tribalism and strawmen

 

[nepalnt21]

Both Republicans and Democrats are willing to use government to push their agenda. That is the stated and actual purpose of a political party and politics in general. Politics and freedom are antonyms.

Pushing a political agenda on an otherwise peaceful person that is disinterested in political agendas is not a way to allow THEM to live their lives with minimal interference and maximum freedom.

Neither Democrats or Republicans embrace actual maximum freedom with minimal interference.




View attachment 19111626

i saw the pic, and i was like "this is some eNlIghTEd centrist shit"...

and then i read your comment cement.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

i forgot, you guize think of everything in tribalism and strawmen

My response was to the guys saying all Rich people are bad and should be killed. Are you a little slow ?

 

[armedoldhippy]

sorry, Red Eye. far LESS than convincing. tell me what the Democrats try to force right wing religious/ Republicans to do under threat of legal punishment? you keep mentioning an "agenda" . WHAT "agenda"? tolerating gays and protecting their rights? wanting women to have control of their health care ? yeah, that IS "scary", lol... i say it again - the left tolerates differences in people, the right tries to force everyone into the same size/shape box.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

We need a Centrist's revolution. Why can't we just boil all the leftists and right-wingers in a big pot?

 

[armedoldhippy]

We need a Centrist's revolution. Why can't we just boil all the leftists and right-wingers in a big pot?

you jump in first, i'll start the fire. deal?

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

you jump in first, i'll start the fire. deal?

No way man!

 

[nepalnt21]

My response was to the guys saying all Rich people are bad and should be killed. Are you a little slow ?

not sure how you thought i didn't know that, maybe go back and read slowly?

i was making the point that this isn't a "team" thing... you said the kill billionaires was something a certain party was all about... which i was pointing out is a stupid thing to say.

We need a Centrist's revolution. Why can't we just boil all the leftists and right-wingers in a big pot?

because the people running earth are retarded enough without a bunch of luke- warm politics newbs genociding all the decent among us.

wow, i never thought i'd defend being right wing, but here we are with another silly and naive "eNlIGhTEneD" centrist post...

 

[Captain Red Eye]

i saw the pic, and i was like "this is some eNlIghTEd centrist shit"...

and then i read your comment cement.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

sorry, Red Eye. far LESS than convincing. tell me what the Democrats try to force right wing religious/ Republicans to do under threat of legal punishment? you keep mentioning an "agenda" . WHAT "agenda"? tolerating gays and protecting their rights? wanting women to have control of their health care ? yeah, that IS "scary", lol... i say it again - the left tolerates differences in people, the right tries to force everyone into the same size/shape box.

I think your response brings the conversation away from an on-point response to what I actually said and more to your apparent comfort zone - that "democrat good", "republican bad" thing.
I wasn't comparing who is better or worse on freedom, Republicans or Democrats. I get it, you believe Democrats are closer to freedom than republicans.

More specifically, I responded to your claim "the left / liberals want people to live in maximum freedom with minimum interference etc. ". I disagreed and would like to discuss that.

Could you answer the bolded question in the paragraph below please? That will help me understand just what you meant and maybe give you better insight into what I meant.

I assert - Maximum freedom would mean a peaceful individual isn't controlled by any choices but their own and choices which violate their consent are the opposite of "maximum freedom". Automatic inclusion of a disinterested person that doesn't want to be included and doesn't consent to the existing political structure protects that persons "maximum freedom" how?


Again, I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a political centrist either. People that call me a centrist are just being silly or possibly confused, which is forgivable.

I am an advocate for maximum peace and liberty, which is pretty close to "maximum freedom" just with a few caveats from a Voluntaryist perspective, I'll save for another time.
Voluntaryist perspective isn't within the prevailing political structure. It disavows assumption of consent, when no consent is actually given.

Politics assumes consent, even when none is given. Politics is the opposite of maximum freedom. Those are demonstrable facts btw.

Democrats and Republicans are factions within the same political system, a system which begins with an assumption of consent of everyone within a given territory, rather than actual consent of each individual. Assuming consent, when none is actually given is not a way to "allow" maximum freedom". It's impossible, by definition.

There is zero "maximum freedom" present when consent is not actually given. That should be obvious.

Things which begin with an assumption of consent, including political structures. are violators of choice. I can't just assume your consent when you don't consent and then also make the claim. "I am for your maximum freedom" without contradicting myself. Neither can democrats or anybody else.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

sorry, Red Eye. far LESS than convincing. tell me what the Democrats try to force right wing religious/ Republicans to do under threat of legal punishment? you keep mentioning an "agenda" . WHAT "agenda"? tolerating gays and protecting their rights? wanting women to have control of their health care ? yeah, that IS "scary", lol... i say it again - the left tolerates differences in people, the right tries to force everyone into the same size/shape box.

They try to make them pay for abortions don't they ?

 

[armedoldhippy]

Automatic inclusion of a disinterested person that doesn't want to be included and doesn't consent to the existing political structure protects that persons "maximum freedom" how?

"doesn't want to be included" ? how do you mean ? nobody is forced to take advantages of freedoms/rights granted to them. or are you complaining that many people refuse to live by your standards. you don't HAVE to "consent" to legal/political realities. people are free to voluntarily live under more restrictive terms than what society allows, but they are NOT free to impose their more restrictive lifestyle rules on others

They try to make them pay for abortions don't they ?

it's part of health care, which is a social responsibility which you are assenting to by being a member of a socety. there are, no doubt, those (many) which would not agree to help "pay" for cancer surgeries or any other treatments they don't want OTHERS to have partly on your dime. reality sucks, doesn't it ?. it's like insurance; we all pay in and that helps spread the costs out in a thin layer to aid society. but you don't seem to know/recognize that citizens have responsibilities to others.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

not sure how you thought i didn't know that, maybe go back and read slowly?

i was making the point that this isn't a "team" thing... you said the kill billionaires was something a certain party was all about... which i was pointing out is a stupid thing to say.


because the people running earth are retarded enough without a bunch of luke- warm politics newbs genociding all the decent among us.

wow, i never thought i'd defend being right wing, but here we are with another silly and naive "eNlIGhTEneD" centrist post...

It was a joke, Silly. Have you tried laughing about it?

 

[armedoldhippy]

your apparent comfort zone - that "democrat good", "republican bad" thing.

HAH! i AM a registered Republican, and boy am i pissed at the jackboot thugs in the GOP today that would label Eisenhower as a "softy socialist".... their behavior makes me wistful for the "glory days" of Nixon, when GOP members had enough moral integrity to do the right thing even if it cost their party power. many of both parties represent us poorly, but only one party does not want to abide by election results unless they win, and actively tries to dissuade/prevent certain groups from voting.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

HAH! i AM a registered Republican, and boy am i pissed at the jackboot thugs in the GOP today that would label Eisenhower as a "softy socialist".... their behavior makes me wistful for the "glory days" of Nixon, when GOP members had enough moral integrity to do the right thing even if it cost their party power. many of both parties represent us poorly, but only one party does not want to abide by election results unless they win, and actively tries to dissuade/prevent certain groups from voting.

It's unsettling to see the folks excited about a violent retribution against "the enemy within".

The division has become untenable. A rich bigot from New York has fomented a civil war in which citizens are actively seeking violence against their perceived enemy... their fellow citizens.

Our country is not going to make it much longer on hate and division. Love and respect should never be considered things for some and not others.

As long as people defend limiting freedom we will be a country without a direction.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

nobody is forced to take advantages of freedoms/rights granted to them.

Freedoms/rights "granted" to them? From "more equal" pigs? From whom? (looks nervously around for grammar police)

Freedoms / rights don't come from other people calling themselves government. What you refer to as freedoms / rights are by definition and actual practice "revokable privileges" not freedoms and rights.

Are you saying until the laws on slavery were changed, slaves had no rights ?
I say they always had rights, bad people just prevented them from exercising them. Those bad people used cover of government law to do it too. Slaves had their consent violated and their rights disrespected.

Violating consent and "maximum freedom" are opposing concepts. Will you at least acknowledge that ?

If people all have equal rights, then Governments made up of people can't grant rights that other nongovernment people don't already have, in theory they could protect rights, but they rarely do.
You should read the line above a few times, then rebut it, if you can.

it's part of health care, which is a social responsibility which you are assenting to by being a member of a socety.

Demonstrably false.

You can't just say, "oh that's a social responsibility" and all things you like even those which violate another persons freedom to opt in or out, suddenly become "not violating" a persons freedom.
That's absurd and relies on shifting the meanings of words to accommodate your flawed argument.

"Hey what a nice car you have. Oh you have two cars? I need one, Gimmee a car. It's your social responsibility". How convenient. Fail.

but you don't seem to know/recognize that citizens have responsibilities to others.

Citizens are subjects of government. A given person that is a subject, without actually freely consenting to it doesn't have their "maximum freedom" respected. Please don't speak out of both sides of your mouth at once when attempting an argument.

How could I respect your maximum freedom while also telling you, "guess what I know you didn't consent to this, but I said you did anyway, now sit down and enjoy the maximum freedom I've granted you"? The answer is you can't.

HAH! i AM a registered Republican,

Okay. Thanks for mentioning that, but it doesn't matter to an argument that parties to a consent violating government can also be protecting "maximum freedom". "Hey lady, I know you didn't actually consent to my sticking this cucumber up your butt, but I assumed your consent, so you really did consent". That wouldn't be very nice.

Anyhow, whether you are Democrat, a Republican or a Pterodactyl with leathery wings that spits fire to keep people warm because you've decided it's that fire breathing Pterodactyls "social responsibility" to warm people up, even those who said, "you know what Pterodactyl, I don't want you breathing fire on my hut, you're burning my freaking roof, I don't consent....stop " !

Political parties within a government which assume your consent, when it's explicitly NOT given can't also be for "maximum freedom".

Why not say, "I AM a registered Keebler Elf and it's your social responsibility to buy my fucking cookies at a price I set, your consent is irrelevant! Stop resisting, this is the maximum freedom I'm saying you can have"! That's really your argument.

You've done a poor job of convincing me that you understand what maximum freedom is.

Your bill for elf cookies is forthcoming.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Are you a sovereign citizen?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Are you a sovereign citizen?

No, nobody is. The term sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. Common mistake, I forgive you.

Maybe you meant to ask, "are you a free person or sovereign"?

I'm actually a Voluntaryist Keebler Elf trying to keep a dragon from burning the roof off my hut and hoping I can get some double-talking armed hippie guy to pay me for some cookies he never asked for or consented to buying.

I've deemed it his social responsibility and if he doesn't want me to take away all that "maximum freedom" my government has given him, he better cough up the loot!

Also, good to see you back posting. Want a cookie?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Would other people refer to you as a sovereign citizen?