rumitoid

Sorry, I am very sad you do not get my point.

Rose42

I did because its easy to get but don’t agree.

rumitoid

Very sad that you think of acceptance in a free country as something evil. I understand where you are coming from, I just feel that place needs a bigger kitchen and living room.

rumitoid

Lol, if it was easy to get, you would agree, lol.

Seth

Then build an extension on your house, using your own money, and stop trying to force your particular taste in renovation on the rest of the neighborhood, most of whom want no part of it.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

(Sorry for the delay in responding, I’ve been engaged in a more important topic elsewhere. Besides, I knew you weren’t looking forward to this.)

You are quite mistaken about Jesus; he certainly didn’t teach socialism. He said to a rich man:
“Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21.

Socialist politicians would say, “We’re taking everything you have and we will dole it out as we see fit.”

So, how is what the Democrat Party sOCIALISTS saying the same as saying everyone should, “sell everything off and give everything {directly} to the poor {no middleman or government implied} and follow Jesus”, and that is the basis of your reasoning that you agree with “sOCIALISM”? Of course not, so quit stretching Jesus’ words to defend your ideology.

Jesus also said the kings of the gentiles are called benefactors:

24There arose also a contention among them, which of them was considered to be greatest. 25He said to them, "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called 'benefactors.' 26But not so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves.” Luke 22:25-26.

Why do politicians put themselves in positions of being “benefactors”, doling out entitlements by first taking by compulsion from those who labor with their hands? Is it not because they ultimately make themselves quite rich and powerful by steering laws and justice in their favor? Jesus said his people weren’t to do that; so, where did Jesus say that giving your money to bureaucratic benefactors was the same as giving to the poor? Politicians who take money from some to give to others so they can have the money under their authority are thieves. Conservatives, by nature, recognize that inherently, l*****ts seem to thrive and encourage that. Sounds to me more like politicians who want to oversee “democratic socialism” are simply money changers, the same, and only, types of people Jesus literally made whips to drive away from the temple, and they cannot at all be what Jesus was advocating.

The fact you twist the scriptures to support your political view, proves you are the one who has the propensity to distort the facts to bolster your ideology. That is plain old common variety dishonesty.


In Acts 5 we read the following account:

“1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, 2and kept back part of the price, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4While you kept it, didn't it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn't it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart?” Acts 5:1-4

Peter said: “while it was your own didn’t you still own it and it was in your power.” The Bible does not endorse forced, compulsory charity, in the New Testament, it condemns it. Therefore, you are supporting what the Bible condemns.

“Let each man give according as he has determined in his heart; not grudgingly, or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).

Paul wrote, “But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced” (Philemon 1:14).

The New Testament doesn’t at all teach compulsory giving, let alone compulsory giving to a corrupt, secular, government system. So how is it that you think the Bible supports your ideology?

The fact you twist the scriptures just shows that you are willing to stretch the t***h to justify yourself.

Paul said “Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need” Ephesians 4:28

“1Ti 5:8 But if anyone doesn’t provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.”

“2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: “If anyone will not work, don’t let him eat.”

Do Democrats tell people if you don’t work you don’t eat? Do they tell them that if any doesn’t provide for his own, they are no Americans? No. Thus the Bible does not at all support demon-cratic sOCIALISM.

So you see, trying to compare the Bible to the policies of the sOCIALIST Democrats just makes you out to be a liar who doesn’t understand either the Bible or what the Democrats are really about.

"Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System
"Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.
"The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of N**ism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: “Common good comes before private good.” F*****m, said Mussolini, is ” a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.”
"Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class. "Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.
"Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders–that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent. "Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system.
"It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life.
"Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.
"Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to both the business executive and the carpenter, the lawyer and the factory worker.
“Both socialism and capitalism have incentive programs. Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker.
“Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production–the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.
“According to socialist doctrine, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world that must be divided equally between all citizens. One person’s gain under such a system is another’s loss.
“According to the capitalist teaching, wealth has an unlimited growth potential and the fruits of one’s labor should be retained in whole by the producer. But unlike socialism, one person’s gain is everybody’s gain in the capitalist system. Wealth is distributed unequally but the ship of wealth rises for everyone.
“Sadly, America is no longer a capitalist nation. We live under what is more properly called a mixed economy–that is, an economic system that permits private property, but only at the discretion of government planners. A little bit of capitalism and a little bit of socialism.
“When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes.
“As a consequence of our sixty-year experiment with a mixed economy and the welfare state, America has created two new classes of citizens. The first is a debased class of dependents whose means of survival is contingent upon the forced expropriation of wealth from working citizens by a professional class of government social planners. The forgotten man and woman in all of this is the quiet, hardworking, lawabiding, taxpaying citizen who minds his or her own business but is forced to work for the government and their serfs.
“The return of capitalism will not happen until there is a moral revolution in this country. We must rediscover and then teach our young the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Then and only then, will there be social justice in America.”
https://ashbrook.org/publications/onprin-v1n3-thompson/



It’s like Seth pointed out to you: you can believe what you want, but when you start making it compulsory for us to support others, by putting our earnings under the control of bureaucrats whom we only have a very slight input in where that money goes, you have totally removed yourself and your ideology from a biblical basis. It is thus dishonesty for you to attempt to justify the tyranny of “social democracy” on the Bible. Why does it appear this goes right over your head? Hence the “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel analogy.” Which, by the way, rather than take to heart, you’ve doubled down on by.

How can you expect me to show you respect when you are so adamant in your lies, and when they are pointed out to you, you double down on them? Only selectively are you willing to listen to counterpoints.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

My response to this is this video,
https://youtu.be/Az0JH1D62Yc

In the video link, you will find Laura Ingraham’s presentation of the hypocrisy of the Democrats, who, as you imply, absolutely say they don’t want open borders on one hand, but whose policies strongly protect open borders. You can’t have it both ways, Rumi.

Why are Democrats fighting Trumps ruling to keep families together by doing away with the 20 day rule? Why don’t you watch the video and tell me how the report is “right wing propaganda”?

Here’s another article, written by a non-partisan “Center for Immigration Studies”. They state:
“The Democratic leadership may be trying to keep its distance from the hard Left's comically absurd Green New Deal, but it has embraced the "Abolish ICE" agenda. The Washington Post report that National Review Online's Rich Lowry linked to makes clear that the Democratic budget negotiators, while shying away from simply guillotining the agency immediately, as their party's Jacobins have demanded, have simply adopted a different approach to the same goal — starving ICE's immigration-enforcement functions...
“Democrats had also been focused on limiting ICE's ability to detain unauthorized immigrants...
“This is clear from the summary of the Democratic proposal at the beginning of negotiations: Cut the number of detention beds, abolish family detention, and cap detention "associated with interior enforcement" to the level at the tail end of the Obama administration — a level so low that ICE would be forced to release criminals and perhaps even violate the law regarding the kinds of deportable aliens whose detention is mandatory.
“The increases sought by Democrats are designed to turn ICE (and the Border Patrol) into a welcome wagon for i*****l a***ns...
“Implementation of the Democratic proposal would, among other things, dramatically increase the rapidly growing number of border infiltrators using children as a ticket to release into the interior. And people in Latin America are noticing; Gallup reports that "A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S." If only one in five actually follows through, this will be a crisis on the scale of what we saw in Germany a few years ago. And there's no reason to think the Democrats' invitation to i*****l i*********n will only be accepted by people from Latin America — there's already a growing number of Indians jumping the Mexican border and Gypsies from Europe bringing kids across the Canadian border as an illegal-immigration strategy.
The Democrats can deny all they want that they support open borders, but the budget is the policy, and open borders is where it leads.” https://cis.org/Oped/Democrats-and-Open-Borders-Budget-Policy

Deny it all you want, Rumi, but the budget policies (follow the money) of the Democrats expose their real intentions.

And then there are those pesky “Sanctuary Cities” where the Democrat call is, “come one, come all, whether murderer or not”. Sorry to say it, Rumi, but that doesn’t help silence the right-wing hysteria, when politicians that are supposed to be serving the legal citizens are more concerned with i*****l a***ns.

“Instead of attacking sanctuary cities, Congress should be listening to their message. Sanctuary cities recognize that that in most cases, deportation is the wrong punishment for i*****l i*********n, which is a breach of civil, not criminal, law. They understand that our laws do not adequately protect the needs of the strangers who, for the most part, have crossed the border to take work that is eagerly offered them.” https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-allen-sanctuary-cities-20150917-story.html

The basic problem that this article has, as with your weak and pathetic excuses for supporting Democrats, is more false dilemmas. Sanctuary Cities, in ancient times, particularly Bible times, were for people who had accidentally committed a crime. That is a limited amount of people. That isn’t gobs and gobs and gobs of migrants with their hands out in order to “take work that is eagerly offered to them”; they are taking our healthcare, our welfare, and more, and the proponents of sanctuary cities are keeping ICE from arresting and prosecuting criminals whose crimes are anything but accidents.

Continued in part 3

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 3

Rumi sez= “These facts "do not go right over my head" because it is the false narrative of the GOP. You are wholly mesmerized by the feeble and tired rhetoric coming from the Red Zone of indoctrination.”

The confirmation bias is strong in this one!

When you talk about false narratives, do you mean things like the following:

HuffPost Facing Defamation Lawsuit for Kavanaugh Hit Piece
https://www.westernjournal.com/huffpost-facing-defamation-lawsuit-kavanaugh-hit-piece/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CTBreaking&utm_campaign=wj-breaking&utm_content=conservative-tribune

In this article, it is being reported that Huffington Post is being sued for libel:

“According to the The Washington Free Beacon, HuffPost and one of its former reporters, Ashley Feinberg, are being sued for the defamation of a former Georgetown Preparatory School student who had allegedly attended the same parties as Kavanaugh in high school.”

And you want to act like l*****ts are squeaky clean and right-wingers are the tops when it comes to spin?

But that’s nothing compared to the whole “Russian collusion” h**x perpetrated by the deep state.
You need to watch this video by Dan Bongino, and then tell me that spygate isn’t the biggest scandal in US history:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272018/dan-bongino-horowitzs-restoration-weekend-frontpagemagcom

Have you even heard of Judicial Watch, or Tom Fitton, and what they’ve been uncovering through FOIA requests? Here, let me introduce you...

“In Case You Missed It--State Dept. was WARNED about Hillary Clinton's Illicit Email Use!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJwwGopJg10&t=12s

Tom Fitton’s group pursues FOIA lawsuits and has uncovered gobs and gobs of Clinton emails proving that she was determined to hide her trail.

Are any of your left-wing media sites covering this exposure, or are they just actively covering it up?

Spy gate is turning out to be the greatest scandal and h**x, by far, in American history. The whole Mueller escapade ought to have clued any rational person in to the fact of the magnitude of the s**m. And it’s still going on, based on Nadler and the left’s, YOUR left’s, pursuit of impeaching a President over a manufactured accusation. Utterly despicable, but these are people you defend as the last bastions of t***h in America. Shame on you!



Tommy sez: "And don’t give me lip service that you love America when you sympathize with those who want to destroy it with their plans for failed socialism.

Rumitoid sez: “You do not have apparently have a clue between a welfare state and socialism. Not a single Democrat wants Socialism, uppercase. The system does not work and is not liked. The most effective and prosperous countries in the world have a welfare/capitalist government, such as ours. (Social Security saved us from economic ruin in 2018. Look it up.)”

So, "Not a single Democrat wants Socialism, uppercase."?

If you will notice, I didn’t put “socialism” in uppercase, you did.
“Democrats have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism, poll finds” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/14/democrats-prefer-socialism-capitalism-gallup-poll/988558002/

“According to a Gallup poll published Monday, a majority of Democrats no longer hold a positive view of capitalism, while nearly 60 percent of them feel good about socialism. More than 70 percent of Republicans, on the other hand, see capitalism positively, while only 16 percent of them have a positive view of socialism.

“Gallup's results reflect what many analysts and pundits have identified as a shift toward socialism within the Democratic Party. The success of self-identified socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic p**********l primary, and the upset victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez– a member of the Democratic Socialists of America– over incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, R-N.Y., are often cited as evidence of that shift.”

Is it possible you’ve never heard of Bernie Sanders and his socialist movement or the Democratic Socialists of America”? I wonder why they don’t lowercase their S in “Socialism”. Frankly, I wasn’t aware that as soon as a Socialist identified as Socialist with a capital S, and didn’t make it clear they were talking about “sOCIALISM” (there, better?) with a lower case s, that they would be ipso facto expunged from the Democrat Party. Could you please provide evidence of that?
So technically, you're right, not a single one, but more like 60% of Democrats prefer socialism over capitalism according to a Gallup poll as reported by USA Today. I don't believe either of those are right wing propaganda outlets.

And you say I’m the one blinded by propaganda. Uh-huh, riiiiiiiiggggghhhht.

Furthermore, please show me, in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, where citizens so have a "right" to demand any “socialist” welfare benefits, as today’s “democratic socialists” are demanding, whereby other citizens are to be compulsorily taxed to pay for such services. And while you are at it, please show me where, in the Constitution, the federal government is authorized to take money from productive citizens, and redistribute wealth to whoever they want, under the auspices of “welfare”? I say that because, after how many years of the “socialist” policies, America’s poor are MUCH worse off than they were before American welfare started.

Thomas Sowell, economist “Socialism is disastrous as reality” on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iptLrk8Ikmg

I suppose you’re going to accuse Thomas Sowell of being a “white nationalist” for speaking the t***h about the dangers and fallacies of socialism?

A Rose by any other name...
And then there is Milton Friedman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkdSj6arn0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA Responsibility to the Poor

Like I said, don’t tell me you love America in one breathe and tell me you want to, or agree with, or even support those who want to, "fundamentally change" it in the next. You proved my point. Since you like those other countries, and feel their models are superior, move there. But don’t corrupt our USA with your compulsory sOCIALISM.

And talk about “straw man”, social security is something we all pay into for the direct benefit of ourselves, not others, except to the point politicians have corrupted the system.


Continued in Part 4

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 4

Tommy sez: "Do l*****t-controlled inner cities really look like the model you want for all of America?"
“Rumi sez: “Wow, what are you saying here? What is going on in the "inner-cities" and how are L*****t controlling it?”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-decades-of-democratic-rule-ruined-some-of-our-finest-cities/
"When Democrats are in control, cities tend to go soft on crime, reward cronies with public funds, establish hostile business environments, heavily tax the most productive citizens and set up fat pensions for their union friends. Simply put, theirs is a Blue State blueprint for disaster."

https://thepatriotchronicles.com/news-for-you/woman-sues-california-after-she-catches-a-medieval-disease/

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2019/08/17/frustrated-california-woman-scathing-message-gavin-newsom-homeless-chaos-destroys-small-business/




Tommy Sez: "Do you really want to support a culture that murders unborn babies who inconvenience them?"
Rumitoid replies: “No! (But you exaggerate and distort the issue by saying "who inconvenience them." A mother's life that may be lost is not an inconvenience. Children raped or by incest violated that become pregnant who seek an a******n are not an inconvenience.)

Do you even know what the percentage is of mother’s whose lives are at risk because of pregnancy? Depending on the source, 1-5%.

But we aren’t talking about when a mother’s life is in danger, we’re talking about selective a******n. So once again, you are resorting to a false dilemma, based on a distortion of facts. What we are talking about is taking innocent lives for the sake of the convenience of the mother.


“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.”
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

Show me where “pro-choice” people admit, as a general rule, and not a minority, that a******n is the taking of a human life? On the other hand, pro-life advocates are open and willing to discuss, consider, and accommodate a******ns in life threatening situations:

“A******n and “Health of the Mother”
“First, let’s be absolutely clear what we are (and what we’re not) talking about here. When someone hears about a situation in which a pregnancy is terminated, what often comes to mind is elective a******n, which entails the purposeful k*****g of a preborn baby for the sake of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. In no way and under no circumstance does Focus on the Family view elective a******n as a morally acceptable choice. However, we would not consider it immoral for a woman to accept treatment that is necessary to save her life, but which may end the life of her preborn child.” https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/a******n-and-health-of-the-mother/

So, which one of us is the one who exaggerates and distorts the issue, when a******nists typically won’t admit that the number of women that need life-saving a******ns is extremely small, and they won’t admit that life begins, biologically, at conception?





Rumitoid, have you ever heard of the phrase “moral equivalency”? My question is, what “moral equivalency” does “autism” have with “g****r”? In what alternate universe are you living where there are signs on bathroom doors, one saying “Autistic” and the other saying “non-Autistic”? In what alternate universe are you living in where autism is considered a “sin” by any religious group? In what alternate universe are you living in where, whether a set of persons are homo-autistic or heteroautistic would determine whether the union would produce offspring (the basic building block of society) or not? In what alternate universe are you living in where people with Autism, or Down’s Syndrome, are considered so a******l that conservatives are literally rallying around the right to snuff them out before birth (as is the case with the l*****ts in our real world)?

Now let’s look at the definition of autism:
• A pervasive developmental disorder[/b[ characterized by [b]severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.
• a mental disorder characterized by inability to engage in normal social interactions and intense self-absorption, and usually accompanied by other symptoms such as language dysfunctions and repetitive behavior.
• behavior showing an a******l level of absorption with one's own thoughts and disregard for external realities.

How many conservatives or liberals do you know that don’t consider Autism a disease that needs and deserves a cure? How many of the same cry out for the rights of Autistics to be Autistic and their Autism not be called “a disorder”? How many liberals would deny Autistic people to be given medication to treat their disorder because it is “genetic”?

“Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder
“There are no medications that can cure ASD or treat the core symptoms. However, there are medications that can help some people with ASD function better. For example, medication might help manage high energy levels, inability to focus, depression, or seizures.” https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/treatment.html


Now let’s consider g****r and its genetic components:

“The X and Y c********es determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex c********e (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex c********es (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the t***slocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y c********e. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y c********e. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of c********e complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.” https://www.who.int/genomics/g****r/en/index1.html

Again, is that what l*****ts are referring to when they talk about the various g****rs, the biological structure of their c********es? It would seem to apply if you were being honest about biological data being the determining factor of whether certain ones should be identified as “other than” male or female. If so, it would be a simple matter of getting a DNA test, and its done. How many conservatives do you know that are morally against allowing a person of mixed or confusing “c********e complements” to be forced into being one or the other?

But, of course, we both know, as with a******n, "observable, biological fact" isn’t at all the issue is it? So which one of us is showing symptoms of being blinded by ideology rather than facts and science?

I’ve simply had enough of this and this is as far as I’ve gone in addressing your ridiculous accusations.

If I have piqued your interest at all, rather than just driving you to TDS (TommyRadd Derangement Syndrome), then I recommend you check out this thread where I introduce David Horowitz, a Jew and ex-l*****t, now a strong defender of conservatism, who points out the evil inherent in l*****t dogma (which no “Christian” should entertain):
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-155731

Cuda2020

I think accessing Trump has been thoroughly done. What we need to do now is tune him out and focus on turning a deaf ear to the h**eful diatribe coming from both sides, and turn to each other as a people of one country, yes with many ethnic differences but, what have in common is the love for our country. We can't change the minds of the radicals who h**e so deeply, nothing will change their minds, they are way too entrenched in it. Unfortunately, Our president is one of them and is running his campaign on it. But what we need to do is just step over them and hold out peaceful hands to those who wish to grasp it. JMHO

Here on Opp, it is hard to stay neutral because of the unprovoked attacks are constant from the right with their h**e. As we have just witnessed here with Tommy Radd and his over indulgent posts and others.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

America itself is an experiment in extremism: extreme distrust and distaste for all things tyrannical.

If agreeing with that makes me extreme, guilty as charged! I do not understand how tyranny and liberty can peacefully coexist alongside each other by compromising both or either.

debeda

Rose42

You are addressing someone who is one of those who h**e so deeply that nothing will change his mind. Anyone who demonizes the entire right or left is completely irrational.

Attacks from the left - PeterS, Kevyn, Rumitoid and others are just the same. There really is no difference between the zealots on the left and zealots on the right. You may see more from the right simply because there are more right leaning posters here.

You are right we need to come together as a country but I don't see it happening anytime soon as the divide is only growing and has been for years.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

It is quite literally a battle of good vs evil. That is why David Horowitz’s work is so important.

We learn a lot about the wrong way through Jesus’s preaching against Pharisees. I don’t think he was under any delusion he was going to win many, if any, of them individually either. But what we learn about, through such exchanges, is human nature... and what God honors vs what He abhors!

Cuda2020

in your comment..." America itself is an experiment in extremism: ???

...extreme distrust and distaste for all things tyrannical." That is the negative beliefs of the right, built in fear. You speak of the distrust, try observing the paranoia of the right with all their conspiracy theories against people and our government and its protective agencies, yet trust a proven liar, so tell me who has the problem here?

We believe in our government and it people no matter the flavor. We believe rights for all, not selective groups. We believe in the v**e of the people for the people and by the people. Maybe Representatives who no longer represent us should be given the proverbial boot, and we should go to a direct democracy. That would eliminate many of the tyrants.