It baffles me how much of a hard-on Conservatives have for the Police state in the U.S.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I just read a perfect line from George Bernard Shaw.

If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you.

I think Conservatives are finally realizing the truth. But nobody is laughing.

Hell, maybe I'll read it. I just read the plot and apparently it's boy fucks one girl at the end of the novel. That's good enough.

As to the line from George Bernard Shaw, are you saying conservatives have realized the truth, they're not laughing, so they're about to go on the war path? Fantasizing a little, perhaps that's already happened to the left, and the result is what we're seeing in the streets of cities right now. So maybe we're on the verge of something like the Spanish Civil War.

I seriously doubt it though. The institutions of American democracy are too strong for that to happen. It might make a good plot for a novel though, if we could insert the boy fucks lots of girls thing somehow.

[oeb11]

Tiny - i do hope u are correct.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

...You conservatives are no different then the radical lefties who enjoy big government controlling their lives at the expense of the private individual.

I am no fan of big government. Seems as though you blissfully ignore how that government is used and abused by the lefty-socialists to create an all encompassing Nanny-State. Less government the better. But if you was a group that is responsible for responding to many emergency quickly, it will cost you. If you want that same group to have feelings about your cause(s), it will cost you everything.

[redpartyhat]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I am no fan of big government. Seems as though you blissfully ignore how that government is used and abused by the lefty-socialists to create an all encompassing Nanny-State. Less government the better. But if you was a group that is responsible for responding to many emergency quickly, it will cost you. If you want that same group to have feelings about your cause(s), it will cost you everything.

I don't ignore it, I just haven't brought it up because it's not relevant at the moment.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

I started picking this post apart as I usually do and just erased everything I had written so far because I felt there was something deeper I was trying to get too with your thinking which I really don't understand and maybe it's the "redpartyhat" handle that is throwing me off. Let me see if I can refine my post to one or two points.

That is what has me scratching my head. Conservatives don't belief in freedom? That may be one of the broadest ill-defined statements I have ever come across. I think a good example is what happened to Drew Brees who is absolutely a big C conservative and Christian. He thought he had the freedom to voice his own truth about principles he held dear but the radical left told him he didn't have that freedom. He must conform. Are liberals recognizing his freedom? I think not. Conservatives all over the place have been saying for days that protesters absolutely had the right to peacefully protest, that is their constitutional right but they do not have a constitutional right to burn and loot. When burning and looting starts, it must be shut down. There is no constitutional right to destroy anothers property but much of the left, hell, all of the left, from what I'm hearing are saying that burning and looting is not violence and "understandable" as a legitimate form of protest. One Black woman was heard to say "we don't own any of this shit, which of course isn't true, so why should we care if it's burned to the ground". Is that now what being a liberal means?

So, what are these American principles you speak of? I know you think you have already defined them but I just don't see what you are talking about. Conservatives don't like or want freedom? WTF?

Say what? See, this is where I think you go completely off the rails. Government spending is one of the most definable platforms in both the Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative parties. If you took a poll of registered voters, I can guarantee you, most would put Democrats in the big government spending category and Republicans against big government spending. It is at the very heart of the spending bills now going on in Congress. Democrats want more spending, Republicans less. So how on earth did you come up with the notion that most Republicans are OK with the welfare state and massive government spending? It is the exact opposite of that IMHO.



When I attempt to defend the Constitution and American Principles, the users on this site tell me to move to China. It's testimony to how far we've strayed from the vision this country was founded on.

And what is this defense of the Constitution you speak of? How are Republicans, Conservatives violating constitutional principles? Again, sorry if you believe you have already addressed this but I just don't see it.


I'll give you an example. All these military leaders including recently Colin Powell, seem to be saying it is un-constitutional to put active military troops on the streets of America. It is not. It may be uncalled for, it may be un-wise but it is not un-constitutional and few things get my political dander up more than people incorrectly sighting the use or misuse of what is and isn't constitutional which brings me back to your statement. What constitutional/ American principles are republicans/ conservatives violating?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. ... §§ 331–335) that empowers the

president

of

the United States

to deploy

military

troops within

the United States

in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

[oeb11]

HF - Thank U - well done and accurate as to the issues.

Unfortunately, i doubt U can affect the "thought processes" of the poster U are addressing.

Is UHB using another handle??

[redpartyhat]

I started picking this post apart as I usually do and just erased everything I had written so far because I felt there was something deeper I was trying to get too with your thinking which I really don't understand and maybe it's the "redpartyhat" handle that is throwing me off. Let me see if I can refine my post to one or two points.

You've yet to pick apart anything.

That is what has me scratching my head. Conservatives don't belief in freedom? That may be one of the broadest ill-defined statements I have ever come across.

To clarify, Conservative's claim to being pro-freedom is hot air. Actions of Conservatives AND Republicans suggest they are as Authoritarian and Centralized as the left the Dems. The difference is that the left and Dems don't claim to be on the side of Freedom and the Constitution.


I think a good example is what happened to Drew Brees who is absolutely a big C conservative and Christian. He thought he had the freedom to voice his own truth about principles he held dear but the radical left told him he didn't have that freedom. He must conform. Are liberals recognizing his freedom? I think not. Conservatives all over the place have been saying for days that protesters absolutely had the right to peacefully protest, that is their constitutional right but they do not have a constitutional right to burn and loot.

Drew Brees has a right to the first amendment. But if he and Trump are saying US citizens are not allowed to "disrespect" the flag, they are directly challenging the first amendment, wouldn't you agree?

When burning and looting starts, it must be shut down. There is no constitutional right to destroy anothers property but much of the left, hell, all of the left, from what I'm hearing are saying that burning and looting is not violence and "understandable" as a legitimate form of protest. One Black woman was heard to say "we don't own any of this shit, which of course isn't true, so why should we care if it's burned to the ground". Is that now what being a liberal means?

When did I advocate for this?


Say what? See, this is where I think you go completely off the rails. Government spending is one of the most definable platforms in both the Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative parties. If you took a poll of registered voters, I can guarantee you, most would put Democrats in the big government spending category and Republicans against big government spending. It is at the very heart of the spending bills now going on in Congress. Democrats want more spending, Republicans less. So how on earth did you come up with the notion that most Republicans are OK with the welfare state and massive government spending? It is the exact opposite of that IMHO.

You're right, Dems and Reps and government spending go hand in hand. You say Republican talking points goes against big government spending and pro free-market when evidence points against that. Sure Conservatives want to minimize social programs, remove regulations on business, and lower corporate tax (good). But, I've yet to see Republicans talk about squashing Social Security or Medicare (welfare), or talk about reducing current military spending (also welfare). Why should Johnny Redman consider joining the workforce or contributing to the market when the government provides multiple incentives to just simply join the armed forces? Whatever happened to making sacrifices to protect and serving your country when it it's usually in the individual's best interest to join regardless? At least Democrats don't hide that they are in favor of big spending. I think right-wing socialists is a better term.


And what is this defense of the Constitution you speak of? How are Republicans, Conservatives violating constitutional principles? Again, sorry if you believe you have already addressed this but I just don't see it.



1. Curbing civil liberties to counter terrorism.
2. Use of the Commerce Clause to prohibit voluntary commercial interactions is in direct violation of either Constitutional intent or Constitutional text. (See Raich v Gonzales)
3. Search and seizure laws violations through civil asset forfeiture.
4. Support for qualified immunity.
5.6.7. Almost everything about the religious right, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism

The list can go on indefinitely.

Look you seem more rational then some of the other jackasses here and you may not 100% agree with me on everything here and that's fair.

The fact is, Leftism/Socialism/Big Government is spreading rather quickly amongst younger generations. Now you may think it's due to Chinese propoganda, or MSM, or whatever. But when I look at the alternatives and how the right conducts themselves, let's just say it doesn't surprise me.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

You're right, Dems and Reps and government spending go hand in hand. You say Republican talking points goes against big government spending and pro free-market when evidence points against that. Sure Conservatives want to minimize social programs, remove regulations on business, and lower corporate tax (good). But, I've yet to see Republicans talk about squashing Social Security or Medicare (welfare), or talk about reducing current military spending (also welfare). Why should Johnny Redman consider joining the workforce or contributing to the market when the government provides multiple incentives to just simply join the armed forces? Whatever happened to making sacrifices to protect and serving your country when it it's usually in the individual's best interest to join regardless? At least Democrats don't hide that they are in favor of big spending. I think right-wing socialists is a better term.

Yeah, if you bring up substituting a system like Singapore has for Social Security and Medicare, which wouldn't bankrupt the country and which is superior to what we've got in the USA, it's the right here that will be all over you, more than the left. When you look at George W. Bush in his first two years and Trump in his first two years, when Republicans also controlled Congress, spending and deficits were as bad as usual. And neither side is going to rationalize or cut the size of the military, because it's a great source of pork for Congressmen to brag about in their local districts. What happens when the military brass want to cut a weapons project or a military base? The Congressman whose district is effected raises holy hell.

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

1. Curbing civil liberties to counter terrorism.
2. Use of the Commerce Clause to prohibit voluntary commercial interactions is in direct violation of either Constitutional intent or Constitutional text. (See Raich v Gonzales)
3. Search and seizure laws violations through civil asset forfeiture.
4. Support for qualified immunity.
5.6.7. Almost everything about the religious right, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism

The list can go on indefinitely.

....The fact is, Leftism/Socialism/Big Government is spreading rather quickly amongst younger generations. Now you may think it's due to Chinese propoganda, or MSM, or whatever. But when I look at the alternatives and how the right conducts themselves, let's just say it doesn't surprise me.

Yes, if the Republican Party would loosen up on the social issues and civil liberties it would improve its standing with younger voters. The party may have to do that to survive in the longer term.

[oeb11]

Singapore has an extremely efficient system of law enforcement - and many laws of personal conduct. Don't chew gum or spit in public - You will be arrested.

They still have caning in Singapore.



One deterrent to crime is prompt justice and punishment.

The Left is all about derailing the Justice system for now - but when they take over - the totalitarian system of control with be truly Orwellian.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

Since when are bullets, silencers, scopes, laser sights, and magazines weapons? Why not just ban everything that makes a gun functional? This is why I can’t take leftists seriously...

Good start I expect. Once you see them as "not salvageable", you may reach enlightenment.

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

...You’ve described a ponzi scheme. How do I opt out if this?...

I did not. Actually, I described a savings account. In spite of that, you are 110%+ accurate that it is a ponzi scheme. A-N-D, it depends on about 9 of the very coddled Socialist whack-a-doos and BLM posers to keep it afloat for each person collecting from it with many knowing that said ponzi scheme will likely not be around by the time it's their turn to collect. Instead, they have to also save for their own retirement savings by working and earning a decent wage and contributing to society writ large. BTW: it is not an optional program, but in classic irony, it was part of "The New Deal" program put in place by Demonicrat FDR. In galactic irony, those very in-duh-viduals want to implement "The Green New Deal"

Ya might oughta read the previous paragraph a couple times to get an inkling of what they may well be all fired up about, while courteously ignoring the terrible grammatical structure of it ;-)

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

...Yes, if the Republican Party would loosen up on the social issues and civil liberties it would improve its standing with younger voters. The party may have to do that to survive in the longer term.

You got a written source that says that Republicans, in general, are against swift and public canning of minor law breakers and against severe punishment of egregious law breakers hidden in your pocket?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by redpartyhat

To clarify, Conservative's claim to being pro-freedom is hot air. Actions of Conservatives AND Republicans suggest they are as Authoritarian and Centralized as the left the Dems. The difference is that the left and Dems don't claim to be on the side of Freedom and the Constitution.



Holy crap! Have you been looking at the news for the past 3 1/2 years? When you make comments like that, it makes you sound completely out of touch with reality. "We are on the side of Freedom and the Constitution and Trump is not", the mantra of the Democrats, might as well be on a constantly running chyron on MSM. What the hell was the whole impeachment fiasco if not the Democrats thought Trump was violating our freedoms and had violated the constitution which was absurd on it's face?

And if both sides are guilty of this as you say and we basically have a two party system and must vote for the lesser of two evils, then Democrats are coming across as more authoritarian and anti-freedom IMHO. Daily now we are seeing Democrats demand that you bow at the feet ( literally and wash them too ) of BLM. You may not have an opinion different than BLM if you want to keep your job and be safe. This is a choice we must all make.



Drew Brees has a right to the first amendment. But if he and Trump are saying US citizens are not allowed to "disrespect" the flag, they are directly challenging the first amendment, wouldn't you agree?


I would agree if Brees ever said anything remotely like that. The only thing Brees has said is that he will not "disrespect" the flag. To my knowledge, he has never said anything about passing laws against disrespecting the flag.

Now Trump, well, that gets a bit more complicated, but I rarely defend the things that Trump says but I do often defend his actions. I really, really hate to see our flag burned/ disrespected but I do understand the constitutional interpretation of not having a law against it. I think more correctly, Trump was saying that football players shouldn't be allowed to take a knee by the owners or the league. I am not aware if Trump ever said "there ought to be a law" but it wouldn't surprise me.



You're right, Dems and Reps and government spending go hand in hand. You say Republican talking points goes against big government spending and pro free-market when evidence points against that.

SMH. Now I just don't know if you are saying these things and you know better or you simply don't know better. Every single spending bill brought before Congress in my lifetime, has had Republicans saying and voting against big government and government spending with the exception of the military which I'll get to in a minute. The Republican mantra is literally "against big government and against government spending". Know any Democrat calling for a reduction in over all government spending?


Sure Conservatives want to minimize social programs, remove regulations on business, and lower corporate tax (good). But, I've yet to see Republicans talk about squashing Social Security or Medicare (welfare),


Say what! You've yet to see Republicans "squashing" SS or Medicare? Maybe it's the word squashing but good God man, every election season Democrats talk about how Republicans want to "throw granny off a cliff"! Do you know why they say that? Because they are suggesting that Republicans want reform Medicare at best and dissolve it at worse. Come on man, you can't possibly believe what you are writning and I'm beginning to think you are one of those people who say these things just to get the reaction you are getting from me, one of disbelief.


How many times have you heard that Republican want to "change" or do away with SS? I'll tell you, a million times! Remember how Republicans ( Democrats say ) wanted to do away with SS and have 401k's as an alternative tied to the stock market? You've never heard any of this?


or talk about reducing current military spending (also welfare).


Some military spending to big corporations could in deed be seen as "corporate welfare" and that is a problem, but I think measures are being taken to reduce military spending like restricting payments for over bids and failing to bring in a job under contract. This would reduce spending but the military must spend money to keep up with technological advances or we will find ourselves to be the second best military in the world and ultimately a loser if we are not first.


Why should Johnny Redman consider joining the workforce or contributing to the market when the government provides multiple incentives to just simply join the armed forces?



Again, you are kidding right? Ever look at a chart that compares what Johnny would make doing the same job in the private section compared to what he would make in the military? Nobody gets rich being a grunt in the military. I served 4 years in the United States Navy and I never met a millionaire.



Whatever happened to making sacrifices to protect and serving your country when it it's usually in the individual's best interest to join regardless?


Yeah, it was in one's "best interest" to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan 5, 6 times while your buddies are returning home with no legs. Talk about an incentive to stay in the military huh? Most people join the military for two reasons, to protect and serve or because they simply don't have better choices do to not enough money for college or they simply don't have the grades. I had neither. I came from a lower middle class family and I barely got out of high school taking nothing higher than Algebra 1, which I almost failed and probably did but the teacher took pity on me, with nothing higher than Biology in the sciences. I stunk at school but I found my ability to learn in the Navy where I achieved the rank of E-5 in less than two years, a better than average outcome at that time. I held the same job in Communications Tech. for 34 years being a team leader for the last 24 in charge of jobs in the millions of dollars. I once installed a $15 million dollar computer project. For some people, learning comes later in life.


At least Democrats don't hide that they are in favor of big spending. I think right-wing socialists is a better term.


They sure don't and any "rational" comparison would led any sane person to believe that Democrats, over all, are for more government and more government spending than Republicans. If you want to make the case that both do, which you did make, I can only repeat that Democrats call for more over all spending than Republicans. If you can dispute that with statistics, please present them.


1. Curbing civil liberties to counter terrorism.



So you are saying that no civil liberties can ever be curtailed to counter terrorism? If terrorist are lose in your neighborhood ( San Bernidino and the Boston Marathon bombers, comes to mind ) you can not be forced to stay in your home under penalty of law but if there is a virus that might kill .2% of those that catch it, you can? Which political party seems to be more in favor of curbing civil liberties in the past few months?



2. Use of the Commerce Clause to prohibit voluntary commercial interactions is in direct violation of either Constitutional intent or Constitutional text. (See Raich v Gonzales)


And only Republicans have been known to do this? I'm not going to take the time to research this but I'd love to hear your answer to the question?


3. Search and seizure laws violations through civil asset forfeiture.


Same question. Only Republicans are known to do this?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#612a6aa95fa2


President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.




4. Support for qualified immunity.


And how did "qualified immunity" survive 8 years of the Obama administration and many Democrat Mayors in total control of their communities? Sure, it's a big deal now for Democrats and we will see if it gets any republican support.


5.6.7. Almost everything about the religious right, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism


So, no religious Democrats? I think Nancy Pelosi would be surprised to hear that Democrats don't respect religious freedom



https://newrepublic.com/article/1294...s-didnt-matter


The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter

Democrats are against the war on terror?Shall we check out the votes for use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq?



The list can go on indefinitely.



And I could go on indefinitely with a counter argument to everything you come up with. Nothing you have written is a Democrat NO, Republican YES issue.



The fact is, Leftism/Socialism/Big Government is spreading rather quickly amongst younger generations. Now you may think it's due to Chinese propoganda, or MSM, or whatever. But when I look at the alternatives and how the right conducts themselves, let's just say it doesn't surprise me.

And when I look at how the Left is conducting themselves, I worry about our Republic more so than I do about Trump being the President for another 4 years to keep the far, radical left at bay for at least a while longer.

[redpartyhat]

Holy crap! Have you been looking at the news for the past 3 1/2 years? When you make comments like that, it makes you sound completely out of touch with reality. "We are on the side of Freedom and the Constitution and Trump is not", the mantra of the Democrats, might as well be on a constantly running chyron on MSM. What the hell was the whole impeachment fiasco if not the Democrats thought Trump was violating our freedoms and had violated the constitution which was absurd on it's face?

And if both sides are guilty of this as you say and we basically have a two party system and must vote for the lesser of two evils, then Democrats are coming across as more authoritarian and anti-freedom IMHO. Daily now we are seeing Democrats demand that you bow at the feet ( literally and wash them too ) of BLM. You may not have an opinion different than BLM if you want to keep your job and be safe. This is a choice we must all make.

I am completely out of touch with reality... but then you finally admit that the two parties are potentially both evil? Now you're finally starting to see the light.

SMH. Now I just don't know if you are saying these things and you know better or you simply don't know better. Every single spending bill brought before Congress in my lifetime, has had Republicans saying and voting against big government and government spending with the exception of the military which I'll get to in a minute. The Republican mantra is literally "against big government and against government spending". Know any Democrat calling for a reduction in over all government spending?

Great, again you agree. With the exception of....my whole literal point from the beginning.

Say what! You've yet to see Republicans "squashing" SS or Medicare? Maybe it's the word squashing but good God man, every election season Democrats talk about how Republicans want to "throw granny off a cliff"! Do you know why they say that? Because they are suggesting that Republicans want reform Medicare at best and dissolve it at worse. Come on man, you can't possibly believe what you are writning and I'm beginning to think you are one of those people who say these things just to get the reaction you are getting from me, one of disbelief.


How many times have you heard that Republican want to "change" or do away with SS? I'll tell you, a million times! Remember how Republicans ( Democrats say ) wanted to do away with SS and have 401k's as an alternative tied to the stock market? You've never heard any of this?

How many times have you heard that Republican want to "change" or do away with SS? I'll tell you, a million times! Remember how Republicans ( Democrats say ) wanted to do away with SS and have 401k's as an alternative tied to the stock market? You've never heard any of this?


Rumors of change/reform is the most you'll ever hear. Amongst the right, the conversation gets brought up but in the end, nothing changes. What about abolishing? Hell, even just opting out would be great. Unfortunately, Republicans realize that a large percentage of their base are older and would be alienated if SS is done away with. The way I see it, it's welfare for me but not for thee.

Again, you are kidding right? Ever look at a chart that compares what Johnny would make doing the same job in the private section compared to what he would make in the military? Nobody gets rich being a grunt in the military. I served 4 years in the United States Navy and I never met a millionaire.

If Johnny could've been a millionaire in the private sector, then almost definitely he would've stayed in the private sector. A select few make the actual sacrifice to throw that away to serve their country, and those are the individuals I admire the most. However, most would not have amounted to anything in society and thus joined the military as it was the best personal decision they could have made. That's not sacrifice. And the incentives provided by the military perpetuate this welfare state.

Yeah, it was in one's "best interest" to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan 5, 6 times while your buddies are returning home with no legs. Talk about an incentive to stay in the military huh? Most people join the military for two reasons, to protect and serve or because they simply don't have better choices do to not enough money for college or they simply don't have the grades. I had neither. I came from a lower middle class family and I barely got out of high school taking nothing higher than Algebra 1, which I almost failed and probably did but the teacher took pity on me, with nothing higher than Biology in the sciences. I stunk at school but I found my ability to learn in the Navy where I achieved the rank of E-5 in less than two years, a better than average outcome at that time. I held the same job in Communications Tech. for 34 years being a team leader for the last 24 in charge of jobs in the millions of dollars. I once installed a $15 million dollar computer project. For some people, learning comes later in life.

The two wars you've referenced are some of the biggest examples of Government overreach all footed by the tax payer and inevitably gone to waste. But I don't think I need to get into the specifics of that as I've already mentioned enough to prove my point without addressing the biggest failure of them all.

And again, you're whole story kind of proves my point. It's not the job of the government to make winners or losers. Who knows what you as an individual could have accomplished independent of the government.

They sure don't and any "rational" comparison would led any sane person to believe that Democrats, over all, are for more government and more government spending than Republicans. If you want to make the case that both do, which you did make, I can only repeat that Democrats call for more over all spending than Republicans. If you can dispute that with statistics, please present them.

Democrats call for increase spending in social services and a decrease in defense (not that they stand by their word regardless, Obama was the biggest murderer out of all the presidents). Republicans want an increase in defense and decrease in social services. Now we can argue whether social services or military would be more expensive and which provides more value to the country. But the point would be moot, as we should be cutting spending everywhere.




The rest of your arguments really just amount to "Yeah, well what about the Democrats?" To which there is no argument because I already agree with you.

And I could go on indefinitely with a counter argument to everything you come up with. Nothing you have written is a Democrat NO, Republican YES issue.

They are both YES parties. They are both "evils". That's the entire point. Attacking Democrats is meaningless.

You don't want the leftists taking over and neither do I. In order for this to happen, Republicans need to do better. Like I said, I see the younger generation flocking to the left. I then look at the options they are presented with and it doesn't surprise me at all.