The most critical difference between the political right and the political left is...

[Hum Dinger]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The difference between the right and the left is personal responsibility and individualism vs government dependency and victimization.

 

[g5000]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The difference between the right and the left is personal responsibility and individualism vs government dependency and victimization.

You tards don't even hold Trump responsible, much less yourselves. Who do you think you are kidding?

Just keep on moving them goalposts, kid. Maybe you'll finally score in the end zone one day.

 

[Coyote]

I think you make a lot of assumptions here.

Weight is a complex issue that isn't related to simply "eating too much" - as I pointed out there is also access to healthy food, affordability etc. I live in a state that has a lot of "food deserts". My town does not have a grocery store anymore - the best we have is a Dollar General and, now, a private butcher that also sells some farm produce in season. But that is new. It isn't an issue for me - I have a car. I can drive 30 miles to the a bigger town and go to Krogers. There are other communities in WV where driving to a grocery store is a lot longer - maybe 60 miles. Not everyone has a car. So what are your healthy choices? The cheapest food is usually extremely fattening. What I'm trying to say is you can't just look at someone and assume you know everything about her.

And yes, having a pet can be healthy. It's been shown to relieve loneliness, lower blood pressure etc. Maybe not for you, but for many others especially the elderly. Sometimes that is the only companion they have. Just because they are also poor, should they be robbed of that companionship? We're not talking about someone keeping a horse after all , but a dog or a cat.

Dogs and cats can be expensive. It's not just food, but after Commie Care passed, vet bills went through the roof.

What I am talking about here are necessities, not making life nice and easy for everybody. That's not what our federal government is for. And when our social programs have that explicitly in mind, it's not a wonder when those of us on the right are outraged by it.

Yes, I've seen this in my grocery story many times. When that happens, the grocery store should be allowed to contact the federal government and report what they experienced. Yes, I've seen that 300 lbs woman leave the grocery line after checkout and buy lottery tickets at the customer service window. I've been behind them leaving the store and watch them pack those groceries in a $40,000 SUV; something I could only dream of owning.

Why would healthy food be so expensive? What kind of items are you talking about here? Vegetables are relatively cheap, so are many kinds of fruits. A pot of spaghetti is only about five bucks or less to make, and it can feed a family of four, twice.

Now there is a new scam they dreamed up. They go to customers in the grocery line and ask if they can use their food stamps to buy some of your food. After they pay for your food, you give them the cash for your items they used for their food stamps. They usually ask to buy 40 bucks of your food, and sell it back to you for 30 bucks. Then they go back into the store and buy two 18 packs of beer.

Often when people talk about eating more healthy, what they actually mean is simply eating LESS.

How could that be too expensive?

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

Avoiding preparing a meal.

 

[Coyote]

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

War is increasingly changing to proxies, and upheaval from within.

Actually, Poles played a leading role in this.

Polish Solidarity, Polish Ryszard Kuklinski & Polish Brzezinski played an enormous role in these proxies & upheaval from within.

It lead to the collapse of Soviets, with the help from America.

Still, now Putin's Russia seems to be playing the same game.

I think the West is falling apart, the EU is teetering on the edge, and the USA is on the edge of a potential civil war.... If you ask me.

No, I don't foresee a civil war of any kind. A separation of the country would come first. In fact I support having two countries at this point. I'm so irritated with liberalism I wouldn't mind living with my own political kind.

I think we need political plurality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

War is increasingly changing to proxies, and upheaval from within.

Actually, Poles played a leading role in this.

Polish Solidarity, Polish Ryszard Kuklinski & Polish Brzezinski played an enormous role in these proxies & upheaval from within.

It lead to the collapse of Soviets, with the help from America.

Still, now Putin's Russia seems to be playing the same game.

I think the West is falling apart, the EU is teetering on the edge, and the USA is on the edge of a potential civil war.... If you ask me.

No, I don't foresee a civil war of any kind. A separation of the country would come first. In fact I support having two countries at this point. I'm so irritated with liberalism I wouldn't mind living with my own political kind.

I think we need political plurality.

For what?

 

[g5000]

Guns and abortion.

That's. It.

 

[Hum Dinger]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The difference between the right and the left is personal responsibility and individualism vs government dependency and victimization.

The right may preach personal responsibility and individualism, but what they are is a bunch of spoiled brats that expect the best of everything just for being themselves.

That's why they love their orange god...he is the king of spoiled brats!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The difference between the right and the left is personal responsibility and individualism vs government dependency and victimization.

The right may preach personal responsibility and individualism, but what they are is a bunch of spoiled brats that expect the best of everything just for being themselves.

That's why they love their orange god...he is the king of spoiled brats!

No, they expect the best of everything when they create what they have. On the other side, they expect the best of everything simply because they were born here. It's their right to have what they want and not work for it. It's their right to have free college, housing, free healthcare, and spit out as many children as they desire.

"A liberal believes that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are.
Ken Blackwell

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dogs and cats can be expensive. It's not just food, but after Commie Care passed, vet bills went through the roof.

What I am talking about here are necessities, not making life nice and easy for everybody. That's not what our federal government is for. And when our social programs have that explicitly in mind, it's not a wonder when those of us on the right are outraged by it.

Yes, I've seen this in my grocery story many times. When that happens, the grocery store should be allowed to contact the federal government and report what they experienced. Yes, I've seen that 300 lbs woman leave the grocery line after checkout and buy lottery tickets at the customer service window. I've been behind them leaving the store and watch them pack those groceries in a $40,000 SUV; something I could only dream of owning.

Why would healthy food be so expensive? What kind of items are you talking about here? Vegetables are relatively cheap, so are many kinds of fruits. A pot of spaghetti is only about five bucks or less to make, and it can feed a family of four, twice.

Now there is a new scam they dreamed up. They go to customers in the grocery line and ask if they can use their food stamps to buy some of your food. After they pay for your food, you give them the cash for your items they used for their food stamps. They usually ask to buy 40 bucks of your food, and sell it back to you for 30 bucks. Then they go back into the store and buy two 18 packs of beer.

Often when people talk about eating more healthy, what they actually mean is simply eating LESS.

How could that be too expensive?

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

Avoiding preparing a meal.

Well if you have two or three jobs, chances are you don't need food stamps and you can buy whatever you like.

 

[Norman]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The difference between the political right and the political left is that one supports a reactionary oligarchy and the other a progressive oligarchy.

Both want BIG government, but for different purposes.

The Conservatives want BIG government only to serve themselves. Mostly to solidify a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The liberals want BIG government that serves everyone and prevents a rigid class system and economic hierarchy.

The difference between the right and the left is personal responsibility and individualism vs government dependency and victimization.

The right may preach personal responsibility and individualism, but what they are is a bunch of spoiled brats that expect the best of everything just for being themselves.

That's why they love their orange god...he is the king of spoiled brats!

Not a king, not a God... the God-Emperor.

An American president.

 

[Coyote]

Often when people talk about eating more healthy, what they actually mean is simply eating LESS.

How could that be too expensive?

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

Avoiding preparing a meal.

Well if you have two or three jobs, chances are you don't need food stamps and you can buy whatever you like.

Not necessarily.

 

[Norman]

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

Avoiding preparing a meal.

Well if you have two or three jobs, chances are you don't need food stamps and you can buy whatever you like.

Not necessarily.

Shit-posting on an internet forum is not a job, as isn't far left wing activism.

What's the third one?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

Avoiding preparing a meal.

Well if you have two or three jobs, chances are you don't need food stamps and you can buy whatever you like.

Not necessarily.

Sure necessarily. In a younger day, I often had more than one job, and many times working six or seven days a week. I never even considered food stamps. I wouldn't have been applicable anyhow.

 

[Crepitus]

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

The government is involved in our marriages far more deeply than saying who is allowed to marry who.

The government showers cash and prizes on marriages in about a thousand different ways, and you can be sure that pseudoconservatives would scream bloody murder if all that was taken away.

You mean tax returns and Social Security. I can't think of anything else. But it's really less about that. It's more of being rejected that caused them to take on the issue.

If the court ruled that all government goodies should not be part of marriage, the gays would have still been upset and kept fighting to get married. They feel they can force society to accept their lifestyle and feel more normal about themselves.

After all, where did the most complaints come from? That's right, California, where they had civil unions for quite some time before the court ruling.

Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People

The fight by bigots against gay marriage had nothing to do with religion. It was all about not wanting to share the cash and prizes.

Bigots like you made the exact same arguments against interracial marriages.

Marriage was born from religion. Do you think the US federal government just came up with marriage when the country was formed? Marriage was written about in the Holy Bible. The US Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

The fight against SSM was less about religion and more with preserving a long time tradition, which I know how you leftists hate tradition. During the Bush administration, states had votes on whether to accept SSM or not. Most all of them voted it down including my state. Then the Supreme Court came along and decided against states rights, and forced it upon us.

Not the point. You want government involved, and that's "big government" by the criteria you set.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

The government is involved in our marriages far more deeply than saying who is allowed to marry who.

The government showers cash and prizes on marriages in about a thousand different ways, and you can be sure that pseudoconservatives would scream bloody murder if all that was taken away.

You mean tax returns and Social Security. I can't think of anything else. But it's really less about that. It's more of being rejected that caused them to take on the issue.

If the court ruled that all government goodies should not be part of marriage, the gays would have still been upset and kept fighting to get married. They feel they can force society to accept their lifestyle and feel more normal about themselves.

After all, where did the most complaints come from? That's right, California, where they had civil unions for quite some time before the court ruling.

Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People

The fight by bigots against gay marriage had nothing to do with religion. It was all about not wanting to share the cash and prizes.

Bigots like you made the exact same arguments against interracial marriages.

Marriage was born from religion. Do you think the US federal government just came up with marriage when the country was formed? Marriage was written about in the Holy Bible. The US Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

The fight against SSM was less about religion and more with preserving a long time tradition, which I know how you leftists hate tradition. During the Bush administration, states had votes on whether to accept SSM or not. Most all of them voted it down including my state. Then the Supreme Court came along and decided against states rights, and forced it upon us.

Not the point. You want government involved, and that's "big government" by the criteria you set.

Then I would say you don't know what is meant by Big Government.

 

[Crepitus]

The government is involved in our marriages far more deeply than saying who is allowed to marry who.

The government showers cash and prizes on marriages in about a thousand different ways, and you can be sure that pseudoconservatives would scream bloody murder if all that was taken away.

You mean tax returns and Social Security. I can't think of anything else. But it's really less about that. It's more of being rejected that caused them to take on the issue.

If the court ruled that all government goodies should not be part of marriage, the gays would have still been upset and kept fighting to get married. They feel they can force society to accept their lifestyle and feel more normal about themselves.

After all, where did the most complaints come from? That's right, California, where they had civil unions for quite some time before the court ruling.

Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People

The fight by bigots against gay marriage had nothing to do with religion. It was all about not wanting to share the cash and prizes.

Bigots like you made the exact same arguments against interracial marriages.

Marriage was born from religion. Do you think the US federal government just came up with marriage when the country was formed? Marriage was written about in the Holy Bible. The US Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

The fight against SSM was less about religion and more with preserving a long time tradition, which I know how you leftists hate tradition. During the Bush administration, states had votes on whether to accept SSM or not. Most all of them voted it down including my state. Then the Supreme Court came along and decided against states rights, and forced it upon us.

Not the point. You want government involved, and that's "big government" by the criteria you set.

Then I would say you don't know what is meant by Big Government.

Your definition son, not mine. Did you forget what you posted?