Ronald Reagan on Freedom

60's civil rights leaders would be embarrassed by blm

You can discuss that here: imgflip.com/i/56ojbq

Reagan would be embarrassed by modern republicans.

Nonsense. I would love it if Reagan or someone like him was president. I would take Reagan over Trump any day. Even better than Reagan would be Calvin Coolidge.

Your statement following your refutation doesn't go with the conversation or idea being conveyed.

Yup. It looks like I read your sentence wrong. For some reason when I first read it I thought you were saying that modern Republicans would be embarrassed of Reagan.

I think to a certain extent you are right. I think Reagan would be embarrassed by what the Republican party has become. But then I think our founding fathers would be utterly disgusted by what America has become. They certainly wouldn't recognize what this country has turned into.

Agreed.

He may not have like them, but I speculate he would have liked them far more than modern liberals, who have absolutely nothing in common with the liberals from his time, and almost everything in common with socialists. And we know how he felt about socialists.

Libs today are closer to raegan republicans tho.

Republicans are much closer to the xenophobic nazi party.

Facts are facts.

Your "facts" are just all sorts of wrong. You watch waaaaaayyyy too much TV. Try leaving your house for a little while and seeing for yourself. There are probably 5 or 6 Neo-Nazis in the entire country. Okay... maybe a few more. But where you get the idea the Republican voters are A) xenophobic and B) anywhere near the Nazi Party is absurdly wrong.

Considering that Nazis were socialists and Democrats are socialists I would look in the mirror before you start accusing people who are the polar opposite of Nazis.

Go and look up the Nazi Party platform and see how many things align with the Democrat party. This is your wake up call.

A) Xenophobic? Absolutely. Just look at the America First Caucus that Rep. MTG tried to start. Something about primarily Anglo-Saxon? Xenophobic man.
B) Do I need to start posting all the images I can simply google to find the Nazi flag at any Trump gathering or event? Mind you, no one bothered to tell these people to gtfo? Rather, they either chose complacency, or brotherhood with these people.

So, I went and looked up the Nazi Party Platform... (Confirming what I already knew):

Considering you don't know history, let me teach you a lesson:

Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation,

It's almost as if there aren't varying kinds of socialists in your argument... Only one kind, a false dichotomy to easily create a binary stamp "us or them" ideology.

Mind, you, the right-wing in US today are considered generally as nationalists. So, you're cherry picking definitions here and I am calling you out for it. You should probably look up economic socialism, progressive socialism, direct democratic socialism, representative democratic socialism, and yes, even conservative socialism. You should also try to look up the differences between the left socialists that Hitler imprisoned and what separated his party from them.

Just a thought.

This is your wake up call.

One thing I learned from the Tea Party is that the left is real big on staging stuff. The left would send people to tea party events with a Nazi flag or a Nazi t-shirt. They would show up at precisely the same time the press showed up. And they would leave right around the same time the media left.

This was a fairly common event. So of course you will see Nazi flags at any large gathering of conservatives. They show up to have their pictures taken by the News media and then they go home. They are not Nazis, they are leftists showing up to make conservatives look bad.

Socialists are like that. If you deviate 1% from Socialism then the Socialists start killing. That is why the Italian Socialists murdered Mussolini. It is why the Democrat party starts name calling if any Democrat dares to think for themselves. Name calling is how the America left corrals their people back in line.

There is no doubt that Hitlers' version of socialism was very nationalistic. Everything was for Germany. I just don't how the left can look at the rights love of country and the first thing that pops into their heads is Nazi Germany. Hitler was obsessed with being pure German and creating the master race. That is not what the right is doing at all.

Our passion is with liberty and the Constitution, not this land or the people who live here. Sure America has a lot of really cool things to look at and we have some great people. But the issue is with liberty and the Constitution which protects our liberty.

Liberty combined with morality is what creates prosperity. Neither the land or the people matter when it comes to that. You can take any race, ethnicity, religion, whatever and let them exercise their inalienable rights and let them govern themselves and great things happen.

Our founding fathers didn't invent that idea but they did compile it into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What made America great is that anyone from anywhere could achieve greatness here because of the freedom we offered. That is why the right loves America.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anything Hitler believed in. Hitler was all about a specific race and the people where a part of that race. He wasn't at all interested in individual liberty.

Hitler did create his own version of socialism but it was still founded on the same roots. It was still anti-capitalist and capitalism is based entirely on the freedom of the individual.

Like the claims of "ANTIFA did it..." I find this hard to believe of all events. Especially, when there have been those who have been arrested, identified as Trump supporters, Neo-Nazis, or even spouting the same Confederate paraphernalia. Was it my imagination last year that people were trying to defend the display of the confederate flag? Or was that another false flag operation?

Funny thing about this is, more people have been killed by right wing extremists in mass shootings than by anyone in the left field. Or in riots, for that matter. Many terrorist plots have been stopped that were going to be dealt by the right-wing. So, you're not selling me on the whole "Socialists start killing people"

Another problem with your argument is as I said, you're condemning the entirety of socialists into one category. You're forgetting that there's multiple types of socialism, and it's not this boogeyman buzzword that you're trying to depict.

The left (often referred to as the socialist party by the right, which isn't true) is also passionate about the constitution, and personal liberty. What you're failing to realize is that both sides want to choose what an individual should/shouldn't do. There are many policies by right wing that are aimed at limiting the liberties of others. There are policies of the left that limit the liberties of others as well. Trying to point one out is a fool's errand.

This passage was interesting: "It has absolutely nothing to do with anything Hitler believed in. Hitler was all about a specific race and the people where a part of that race. He wasn't at all interested in individual liberty." So when Marjorie Taylor Greene comes out with this America First Caucus that focuses on Anglo-Saxon traditions, that to me says that she's focusing on one race. So, even if she's the outlier, is she still not a trump supporter? Is she still not a Republican? Is she not showing the Nazi rhetoric here as you describe? She identifies as Republican/Trump supporter whether you think she is or not.

This was also interesting: "Hitler did create his own version of socialism but it was still founded on the same roots. It was still anti-capitalist and capitalism is based entirely on the freedom of the individual."

This is called a genetic fallacy. What that means is, because Hitler uses socialism as a starting point for his platform (which he later betrayed) that means that all socialism is bad. That's the argument you are making. (more)

You really need to research that out. Right wingers don't even register in the list of mass shooters. If you actually read the news articles all the way to the end of the article you will clearly see a trend. The vast majority of mass shooters are leftists. After that it is apolitical psychopaths and Muslims.

Name one mass shooting that was done by a right winger. Just one. I can name a ton of them starting with Columbine, the Aurora Colorado theater, the attack on the Republican congressmen softball game, that Florida high school shooting. And so many more. They were all leftists.

LOOK IT UP!!!!!!

I know it is mentally impossible for people on the left to ever think outside of you perceptions but try for a moment. The Confederate Battle flag does not mean racist. Just because the KKK drags one around with them is irrelevant. What the flag means to millions of people, white and black, living in the South is all about Southern heritage. Race doesn't matter, it is all about pride in where you are from.

There is another group that uses that flag as well. Because the South were nicknamed "rebels" there are people who look at themselves as rebels in society. Although not as much lately (because of the left's refusal to look at that flag as anything by racist) but you used to see bikers and a lot of truck drivers with the Confederate Battle flag on their bikes, trucks or t-shirts.

The Confederate Battle flag was NOT the official flag of the Confederacy. It was only used by two platoons in the Confederate. And the reason for this design was that all other flags of the Confederacy looked too much like the US flag and a lot of Confederates were getting shot by friendly fire.

Considering only 7% of the United States owned slaves then all of those who fought for the Confederacy were not doing it for the promotion of slavery. It was another case of poor men fighting a rich man's battle.

1/ Remember how I said it seemed like you were someone that I could actually hold a conversation with?

"I know it is mentally impossible for people on the left to ever think outside of you perceptions but try for a moment...."

Aaaaand credibility is gone.

4/15/2020
Assumption, IL
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Federal agents charged Randall Burrus with weapons offenses in connection with an alleged white supremacist plot to attack a synagogue or mosque. This incident is linked to the 4/15/20 incident involving John Michael Rathbun.

Terrorist Plot/Attack
4/15/2020
East Longmeadow, MA
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Federal agents arrested white supremacist John Michael Rathbun for allegedly attempting to use an incendiary device to burn down a Jewish assisted living facility. This incident is linked to the 4/15/20 incident involving Randall Burrus.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri man who investigators say was planning to bomb a Kansas City-area hospital was distressed by the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis and motivated by racial, religious and anti-government animus, according to newly unsealed court documents. White supremacist Timothy Wilson plotted to blow up a hospital in the Kansas City area with Covid-19 patients in an attempt to cause mass casualties. He was killed in a shootout with the FBI as they attempted to arrest him.

Terrorist Plot/Attack
1/15/2020
Silver Creek, GA
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Three members of The Base, a white supremacist group, were arrested in Georgia on charges related to an alleged plot to murder people they thought were ANTIFA activists.

Terrorist Plot/Attack
11/19/2019
Gainesville, GA
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Police arrest a teenaged girl on charges of criminal intent to commit murder in connection with an alleged plot to attack an African-American church in Gainesville, Georgia. One law enforcement spokesman said white supremacist Dylann Roof's 2015 shooting spree at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina "does appear to have played some type of role in this."

"1/ Remember how I said it seemed like you were someone that I could actually hold a conversation with?"

Well everyone can have a bad day. I apologize for that comment.

You are making the assumption that "white supremacy" equals right wing. I am probably someone who thinks of themselves has far right (aka more freedom loving than a lot of Republicans) and yet I do not think that my race is superior to all other races. Everyone knows that the superior races are Jews and Asians, they're just smarter than everyone else and even thought there is a bit of tongue in cheek about that I seriously to thinks that Jews and Asians are smarter than the rest of us. I have neither race in my ancestry so that puts me down with the rest of us. I also do not think blacks are inferior in anyway. I've met black people who are much smarter than I am. I don't hate them (or Jews and Asians) for being smarter than me. I look up to them.

White supremacists are both on the right and the left. They are kind of an entity unto themselves. Most of them vote Republican these days but they used to be solidly Democrat. So I don't know where you would put them but it would have to be closer to the left.

The reason for that is because the scale that put Socialists and Communists on the left and Nazis and Fascists on the right is mentally ill. If you put totalitarian governments on both ends of the scale then were does freedom exist? So you have the put totalitarian governments on one side and anarchy on the other. I don't care which side but typically total government goes on the left and anarchy goes on the right. I am not an anarchist but anarchy is absolute freedom. No laws, no government, nothing but your own morality.

So if you are running around thinking that you are better then everyone else then I would have to equate that with some type of a power and control issue. Power and control goes on the left.

Hitler was more about race than any other leader that I know of in more recent times and he has to go on the left because there have been few who were more controlling than Hitler.

Plus the list that you provided wasn't all shooters. Some where only in the planning stages. What I am talking about are mass shooters who appear to have no other motivation other than killing as many people as they can are by and large mostly left wingers. Most were on the extreme left but not all of them. The person who shot Gabby Giffords was on the extreme left.

I can easily get a list of actual attacks as well, just as plentiful. This list was to show primarily how many plots are stopped as well.

Loughner was never confirmed left or right, just fringe. Gabby Giffords was also Democrat.

I know it is mentally impossible for people on the left to ever think outside of you perceptions but try for a moment. The Confederate Battle flag does not mean racist. Just because the KKK drags one around with them is irrelevant. What the flag means to millions of people, white and black, living in the South is all about Southern heritage. Race doesn't matter, it is all about pride in where you are from.

There is another group that uses that flag as well. Because the South were nicknamed "rebels" there are people who look at themselves as rebels in society. Although not as much lately (because of the left's refusal to look at that flag as anything by racist) but you used to see bikers and a lot of truck drivers with the Confederate Battle flag on their bikes, trucks or t-shirts.
>> Say hello to one of my great uncles. Probably Great*5 but I don't have the genealogy tree in front of me at this moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Allison. My mother hails from the South and she held traditional southern values. I understand them through her, so your argument is invalid there. Funny thing is, Clay isn't even from her side of the family. In spite of his accolades, I'm not proud of him, you won't see me clinging to a racist heritage.

So what you're saying is, the message you send with the flag is more important than the message being received with the flag...? So rather than accept it as a symbol of slavery, you see it as something else. Alright, let's go with that. For example, if I wanted to carry around the Nazi Flag at a rally and say I was using it as a message to show my disdain for the left, as Hitler killed thousands of leftists, would that be okay? Because the message I am sending is more important than the one being received.

I also applaud your revisionist history in that you genuinely know the origins of the "Confederate flag" which you even refer to it as such as the "Confederate Battle Flag" Meaning, it belongs to the Confederacy. It doesn't matter if it was the official flag or not, what matters is what it represents to others.

The South were not the poor men, as the majority of plantations were in the south. Again, the right-wing here trying to say that land makes up the vote instead of the people.

The Southern legacy is about the fight for Slavery, it was in their casus belli.
LOOK IT UP

"I can easily get a list of actual attacks as well, just as plentiful. This list was to show primarily how many plots are stopped as well."

Didn't you do that or was that someone else? It was a list of attacks by white supremacists. White supremacists are NOT conservatives. They are NOT right wing. They are idiots who have a misguided notion that people they dislike must be controlled. People who want to control other people are always leftists, regardless if they vote Republican or not. Regardless if they wave the American flag and think they are supporting the founding fathers.

If you fully believe in freedom of the individual then race is irrelevant. The only controls placed on the individual is so they cannot violate the rights of another individual.

The very definition of a right is a freedom that does not violate the freedom of another. That is why healthcare can never be a right. It is a privilege. Privileges are freedoms that are taken from another, either freely or by force. If the privilege is freely given then it is charity. If it is given by force then it is in contempt with freedom. Government run healthcare is a privilege that uses force, not charity. It is impossible for a government to be charitable because governments have produce nothing, they only take from those who do produce.

"Loughner was never confirmed left or right, just fringe. Gabby Giffords was also Democrat."

If he was the one who shot Giffords then it was confirmed.

"Back then, many companies didn't make 300 times what their employees do."

I just explained this in another comment. Wealth is not finite. If it was then the envy as a virtue and greed as an evil game would work. Marx must have understood that his ideas destroyed wealth in order to start this game.

Yes, in a collectivist system if a CEO earned 300 times more than an employee then that would be horrible because wealth is in such limited and declining supply.

In the real world wealth is infinite. A CEO earning 300 times more than their employees is completely irrelevant and has no effect on anyone's live. It does not prevent that employee from starting their own business and eventually earning 300 times more than that CEO. AND most importantly if that CEO cannot make the decisions that generate higher profits for that business the board of director will fire him. If the board of directors don't fire him then everyone loses their jobs.

"So what you're saying is, the message you send with the flag is more important than the message being received with the flag"

Or in other words we should all live our lives based on what other people think.

In today's world just waking up in the morning makes me a racist to some people. I supposedly was born a racist because of my skin color. So in that respect there is nothing I can do aside from somehow changing my skin color to not be a racist.

I was born in the South but my family moved west when I was young. My ancestry in this country is all in the South. I don't know of any slave owners on my dad's side but on my mom's, in a strange twist of whatever my 4th or 5th great grandfather fought in the Battle of Culloden in Scotland. He was tried for treason to the crown and sent to America as a slave. He was not an indentured servant. Then I imagine sometime between 1776 and 1791 when we were no longer under the English crown he got his freedom. When I found out about him I also found his will where he left his slaves to his two sons.

I have no further information on him other than I think he was a Colonel and served under George Washington. I can only hope that being a slave himself, that he wasn't a cruel slave owner.

But he lived in a different time and no time is any better than any other. We abhor slavery today but we slaughter our unborn just because their lives are an inconvenience. Then the largest agency that butchers the unborn cuts up their parts and sells them for scientific research.

So you choose. One of my favorite rock bands from the 70's and 80's is Genesis. Back in the early 70's Genesis had a song that asked the question, "Why do we suffer each time to believe that no time has been grander." The same song also asks the question, "Why do we suffer each race to believe that no race has been grander."

But those lyrics stuck with me for a long time, even though that is not one of my favorite Genesis songs. But what makes us think that we are so superior to our ancestors? We have more technology and that is about all. We are still the same people that our ancestors were. We trade one great evil for another and then condemn them for their evil while turning a blind eye to our own evil.

I do not support slavery in any way shape or form. If you read one of my other comments I said if one isn't free than none of us are free. Freedom must not be limited based on race or how far along an embryo is in its development.

And that's fine - I get that. The other community who was actually *Hurt* by slavery doesn't.

It's like going to Japan and saying "You're the bomb.." Or singing "You Dropped a bomb on me." Intentional cultural insensitivity = intellectual racism. Knowing how your actions affect others, you are suspending your respect for those individuals. The "f**k your feelings" attitude is what paves the way for racism.

(there are multiple types, and so long as one of them succeeds, racism = true)
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

So, my Japan example doesn't work as the majority would be Japanese (by this example.) If we follow this definition, whites cannot suffer racism as they are the majority race and thus the racial epithet "Mayo" would be benign completely. Except, it isn't, we both know it isn't.

There's a reason PC culture exists. There'll always be extremists for whatever movement there is, undoubtedly. These extremists should be ignored and the common, greater good should always be followed. Must you display your heritage through the use of confederate flags? Is there no other means with which to express it publicly?

Hitler's Socialism was evil, so all socialism is evil. That's logically erroneous, I hope you can see that. You also seem to miss the point where Hitler also started imprisoning and killing people who aligned with the political left. Just so, you can have right-wing socialists.

I've run out of replies on your post so this is in reply to the one that starts with: "And that's fine - I get that. The other community who was actually *Hurt* by slavery doesn't."

I also understand what you are saying. I understand that the descendants of slaves look at that much like how we all look at the Nazi flag. But there is a huge difference between the Nazi flag and the Confederate battle flag. The Nazi flag has a one to one meaning with terror and evil. The Confederate battle flag is just that, a battle flag. It never represented the Confederacy. It does not now and never has represented slavery. The biggest problem with the flag is that a small insignificant group, the KKK, decided to use that flag. If they never had done that then there wouldn't be a problem with it. The KKK also used the US flag and some blacks look at the US flag with the same contempt as they have for the Confederate battle flag.

However, there are blacks in the South that also fly the Confederate battle flag. Because for them it is heritage just like whites.

What this nation really needs it to back of this hypersensitivity that has infested the nation. Everyone looks at being a victim as a virtue. It is not. There is nothing great about being a victim. All it means is that you survived a horrible event. Getting offended is not a horrible event, it is just a part of life. It is how you deal with and overcome the offense that can be a virtue.

This is something that you can change about yourself (and I mean that as the generic you and not you specifically). You can decide to not to be offended.

The officer who put his knee on George Floyd's neck was found guilty but BLM was still rioting and protesting anyway. That is what decades of hypersensitivity has done. Even if a group gets what they want they still riot as if they were all victims again. This is not anything that is exclusive to blacks, this is a human nature thing. Antifa is going through the same thing and they are predominately white.

If they're rioting even after conviction, BLM would disavow them. In a heartbeat; they've done it before. Even Mayor Ted Wheeler of PDX knows the difference between white, self-described anarchists calling for "direct action." They aren't looking to push the message of BLM, they're looking to break windows and break the law. Mind you, another distinction that needs to be made is that in spite of what they wear or claim to be, the aren't ANTIFA - at least, not what ANTIFA stands for as I myself, subscribe to what ANTIFA is. There is no leadership as it is at its core, an ideology.

I suppose you could say I can relate to you on the notion of misinformation by symbols and what they mean. So, where does the reconciliation start? Is this gonna be a "you lower your label first, then I'll lower mine?"

I think this notion civil discourse that plagues this country goes beyond hypersensitivity; hypersensitivity is the symptom of something more insidious: misinformation. Of course, this is speculation on my part.

But yeah, you're right, people can see a flag, run it in a bad name, co-opt and subvert its symbolism to suit their agenda. It's been happening for years, not just with flags, but with religion - dating back to Babylon with the Hammurabi code to Judaism co-opting the laws into their own claiming originality, though the commonalities are extreme. With Christians and the birth of Jesus Christ and the Birth of Alexander the Great, from Greece. (Surprise, Alex's story came out first.)

So, one would think the only way to move forward is to drop the symbol and pick up a new one, but it'll always get corrupted by bad actors. In the past, BLM leadership have disavowed any and all violence connected to the riots. BLM have even formed human chains in front of stores to stop white rioters from breaking them. So, they can't be all that bad can they? Or are they the demons that FOX, Trump, and OAN have portrayed them to be? Same with ANTIFA.

What do you think? What's your take on this side of things that are undergoing an identity crisis, much as the South is with the Confederate Flag?

I can't speak on behalf of BLM. I can't say that the use of the C. Flag is okay or not. I'm not a historian, though I did take some classes, just not in US Civil War Era. I honestly cannot say one way or the other whether it is bad or not. I just know for a fact how it affects some people and what it reminds them of. Even though the flag is a battle standard as you say, the-

"I think this notion civil discourse that plagues this country goes beyond hypersensitivity; hypersensitivity is the symptom of something more insidious: misinformation. Of course, this is speculation on my part."

I so agree with you on this point. I think the news media has been manipulating the narrative to generate more hatred so they can sell more news. If the country did not have any strife the news would be dull.

However I disagree on Antifa. There probably isn't a central authority over Antifa but from the very beginning in the early 20th century, Antifa is a communist group opposed to fascism.

I am okay with the opposition to fascism because I oppose it too but I also oppose communism. Both are evil and both are the polar opposite of what America was founded on. I also really hate how Antifa accuses and attacks people just because they think they are fascists. Once again this is a manipulation, this time from the Democrat party and exaggerated by the media.

Basically there are no fascists in America and because of that Antifa is just barking up the wrong tree. I hear there are resurgences of Nazism in Germany, France and Greece so Antifa should go there and concentrate their efforts there.

I'm going to have to take exception with your belief (and the belief of many historians) that Moses copied the Hammurabi code. Both Judaism and and the early Babylons have a believe in a global flood. But they are not the only ones. Many ancient cultures from around the world also have a flood story. The Mayans even have a flood story and a story that is somewhat similar to Adam and Eve.

The Hammurabi code has a lot of similarities to the law of Moses but they are more different than similar. I think those laws that are similar predate both the Babylonians and the Jews.

Even the comparison between Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ has more differences than similarities. The most glaring is that Alexander was a military leader and Jesus was not. He never even intimated that his followers should fight others. Instead He taught us all of love our neighbors, not slaughter them. Plus the idea of resurrection is not unique to Jesus and Alexander. It was somewhat common among the ancient people. Even so Jesus taught that everyone who has ever lived will be resurrected. So resurrection is not unique to anyone.

With Jesus and Alex, I was talking about their origin story - their birth.

When I took my religious studies and history classes (hey, liberal arts, who knew they were useful?) the connections were highlighted how similar the laws were and where they were even placed. Unfortunately, I don't have my notes on those things anymore.

With "no fascism" in America, I will have to strongly disagree. Say what you will about what happened in Portland last Summer, but I was there. I live in Oregon. There were protesters who were literally doing nothing; had done nothing, and they were picked up in unmarked vans by unmarked "officers" who refused to identify themselves to be held accountable to public scrutiny. This is a highlight of authoritarian rule, and should not be accepted by anyone, left or right, in our country. That is fascism. When they started hosing us down for just standing out there with our hands up, macing us, naw dude. That shit is wrong. You mace the rioters, not the people with their hands up. There were people who already submitted to arrest, weren't resisting at all, and police went out of their way to spray them in the face. No. Wrong. Ab-so-f**kin-lutley wrong. If that happened to a Proud Boy, Trump Supporter, Q'er, I would say the same thing. That is taking it _too far_.

Just like guns cannot be inherently evil because they are inanimate objects, does not poison the well to make them completely evil. Just as with communism, you can't apply the genetic fallacy to communism because there are some policies that you disagree with, that we both disagree with. There are redeeming qualities to it as well. I value capitalism as well. There are some policies I don't agree with, yet there are rewarding qualities. Take Haiti for example, that is extreme capitalism, and they have a lot of problems.

The only true "evil" that exists in the world is that which is executed by man. Even then, "evil" is a perspective. How do we classify it? Do I need to go into a talk about ethics? I would think that you classify "evil" as something that goes against the "common good." If that's true, what happens when there are two "common goods" in equal size to one another that conflict? How do you reconcile what is genuinely evil and what is not?

Regarding ANTIFA, you've only heard what major media tells you. The ANTIFA that I stand with, we don't engage in violence. In all my times at the protests I've been to, if anyone did engage in violence, they were ostracized--

-- they were ostracized from the group. We don't want those kind of optics associated with us. We have no leadership, but when we all show up showing the ideology we support, we all have a common idea of what is in our best interest.

Our whole goal is to simply protest fascism and oppression to individual liberty. I'm more libertarian than Liberal. But, because of this false dichotomy that the powers that be have laid before us, I am labeled Liberal/Democrat. Even though, I am neither. So, in the general context of conversation, for the sake of ease and communication, I'll refer to myself as such since people's heads seem to explode when I offer alternatives to my political alignment that are more accurate.

Even so, you can be conservative about some things and liberal about others. These are not blanket terms that you can apply to anything or anyone. There are many fields of politics to consider on where you register on the right or left, or the up or down. It's maddening.

I don't think the News is intentionally trying to have some master scheme as you suggest. I think that they're just following the money; they're short sighted and can't see the damage that their style of reporting (sensationalism) is causing. That, or they don't care. Is it even them though? Could be their investors threatening to pull funds from them if they change their style. (Love that capitalism.)

One thing I grossly detest about capitalism is an example that is shown in a movie called "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2" (I'm a Dad, so I watch these things with my kids.) You see a fellow who's basically a cog in the corporate machine working for a company who specializes in invention. Cutting to the chase, the CEO uses his employees as an invention farm, takes their ideas, steals them and claims them as his own. Socialism would void that and give recognition where it's due as the workers would control the means of production. That's one aspect that I am in favor of. What about you? Is there something nice you can say about socialism? Like Social welfare for the elderly/disabled? Or perhaps food for the starving families who actually need it?

I realize I switched from communism to socialism, but the problem there is that the right-wing uses them so interchangeably, it's hard to keep the focus of the discussion where it is meant to be. Which, in the interest of the evolution of society, isn't that destructive and counter-intuitive to productive discourse?

*sigh*

"In the past, BLM leadership have disavowed any and all violence connected to the riots. BLM have even formed human chains in front of stores to stop white rioters from breaking them."

I am actually not surprised by that. There is a difference between BLM, Inc and BLM the movement. The movement is full of people who have, because of the media, been manipulated into thinking that the world is against black people. However, there are just far too many good black people who stand against violence of any kind.

On the flip side of that groups like the Proud Boys who were formed to basically do the exact same thing get called racists. I went to the Proud Boys website when I first heard of them because I always go to the source and never listen to the mainstream media. As it turns out the Proud Boys aren't all white. Nor are they motivated by race. They just want to prevent businesses from getting burned down by the idiots the media calls "peaceful protesters".

"Even though the flag is a battle standard as you say, the flag was still used in service of the purpose that its sovereign held for the war: the right to slavery. "

I agree with that statement. However, I know exactly how I feel about slavery, I vehemently oppose it. No man or government has the right to own another person for any reason. I firmly believe that most of our founding fathers (even some who owned slaves) also felt that way. I know Washington and Jefferson tried several times to free their slaves but it was in violation of Virginia state law to free ones slaves. Although they could have taken their slaves to another state and freed them but they didn't. So I don't know really what to think about that but I know they at least made some effort.

About 15 to 25% of Muslims are terrorists. Considering the size of that religion 25% put the number of terrorists about the same size as the population of the United States. That's a lot of terrorists. The vetting process for bring Muslims into the country under Obama was non-existent. So we just didn't know if we were bringing in the 75% who were not terrorists or if they were all terrorists or if it was a mixture. So Trump just took the safe way and stopped the bringing of Muslims into the country.

Seeing that I kind of like staying alive I am glad he did that.

If a religion is not Progressive or modern that does not mean they are the Westboro Baptists. All you really need to do is follow what Jesus taught. That works the best

"I agree with that statement. However, I know exactly how I feel about slavery, I vehemently oppose it. No man or government has the right to own another person for any reason. I firmly believe that most of our founding fathers (even some who owned slaves) also felt that way. I know Washington and Jefferson tried several times to free their slaves but it was in violation of Virginia state law to free ones slaves. Although they could have taken their slaves to another state and freed them but they didn't. So I don't know really what to think about that but I know they at least made some effort."

Do you understand that such things aren't about you? You weren't affected by slavery. They [African American Community] was. It causes no damage to you to sport that flag. It's not whether or not you support slavery, it's what the flag represents to those affected by it. You can't apply your disclaimer on that flag in such a manner that people can easily read what it means and understand your entire stance on the matter. That's the whole point of a flag; you're sending a signal. You need to be conscientious of the signal that you're sending to the various audiences that you come across. That's the **WHOLE** point.

Where did you get this data that 15%-25% of Muslims are terrorists? How do you define terrorist in this context?

"On the flip side of that groups like the Proud Boys who were formed to basically do the exact same thing get called racists. I went to the Proud Boys website ..." See, I did too and I learned a few things, the Scotsman summarizes it best:

"...According to reports, the initiation process to join the group involves reciting: “I’m a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world”, before being punched by fellow members. They are then required to receive a tattoo, to vow not to masturbate and then get into a fight “for the cause”.

Their beliefs are extreme and vary from the call to "give everyone a gun" and "end welfare" to the return to traditional gender roles such as "venerate the housewife"... "

https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/who-are-proud-boys-western-chauvinist-far-right-group-explained-and-what-donald-trump-has-previously-said-about-them-2988105

Like, wtf? Venerate the housewife? Wtf!? Gonna call a spade a spade here and say that's pretty f**kin sexist. Then, they advocate for violence? By getting into a fight with ANTIFA? Seriously?

Oof. Gonna add a reply that is just quotes from Proud Boys that are... wrong. If you have questions about them and why they are wrong, let me know. Also, perhaps we should chat privately over PM?

“I’m not a fan of Islam. I think it’s fair to call me Islamophobic.” – Gavin McInnes, NBC interview, Nov. 2, 2017
(racism)

“I promise you this, Ted Wheeler: I’m coming for you, you little punk. And all your antifa bastards. I’m coming for you f-----s, too.” – Proud Boy and Patriot Prayer collaborator Reggie Axtell, in a video posted on his Facebook, January 2019
(threatening acts of terrorism)

“All I want to do is smash commies too. Actually I’m lying I’m way past just hitting them. When the time comes I will stop at nothing to fully eradicate them all.” – Anthony Mastrostefano, in a private chat associated with the Proud Boys, spring 2019
(Circling back to the equivalation by the right of Socialism/Communism. Again, threatening acts of terrorism.)

“All the heroes of BLM and Antifa are degenerate criminal lowlifes or pedophile rapists. I don’t lose any sleep when they are justly removed from society.” – A Telegram channel associated with the Proud Boys, Sept. 22, 2020

“Put something on the table! Give us a reason to accept you, because you know what? Sharia law ain’t it. Raping women ain’t it. Cutting off clits ain’t it. Throwing gay people off roofs ain’t it. You are a disgrace.” – Pawl Bazile, an editor at Proud Boy Magazine, on Muslims and why he is a “Western chauvinist,” March Against Sharia rally, New York City, June 10, 2017
(Here, he's attributing all these horrific acts to all Muslims. That's some extreme prejudice.)

Why don’t we take back Bethlehem? Why don’t we take back Northern Iraq? Why don’t we start our own Crusades? That’s what the Crusades were. They weren’t just someone picking on Muslims for no reason – they were a reaction to Muslim tyranny. We finally fought back.” – Gavin McInnes, “The Gavin McInnes Show,” March 8, 2017
(Ooof.)

“Palestinians are stupid. Muslims are stupid. And the only thing they really respect is violence and being tough.” – Gavin McInnes, “The Gavin McInnes Show,” March 8, 2017
(A call similar to labeling them as savages. Cool.)

“We brought roads and infrastructure to India and they are still using them as toilets. Our criminals built nice roads in Australia but aboriginals keep using them as a bed. The next time someone bitches about colonization, the correct response is ‘You’re welcome.’”
– Gavin McInnes, “10 Things I Like About White Guys,” Taki’s Magazine, March 2, 2017
(I think some Native Americans might have something to say about that.)

Should I go on?

/2 - Even though the flag is a battle standard as you say, the flag was still used in service of the purpose that its sovereign held for the war: the right to slavery. That's the issue. Kind of like how people see Muslim and they think terrorists. Like with the travel ban. We banned travel from entire countries because of a few extremists from either country. People see Muslim and they think terrorist, even though they're not the same sect.

People see Christians, and when they do, some of them see Westboro Baptists, not progressive churches or moderate churches. They see the extremists who chastise them for their life choices and tell them that if they do not submit to their God, they'll burn in hell. In so doing, those very Christians hold contempt for them since they choose not to convert. Who joins a religion out of coercion?

The problem prior to Obamacare is that the insurance companies were so heavily regulated by the government that they eventually established a monopoly of a sorts. This is NOT capitalism nor has it ever been. When private business colludes with the government that is corporatism. It was called mercantilism by the founding fathers and that was part of what we were trying to escape. Some call it crony capitalism but I don't want that ever to be confused with capitalism. Actually I prefer the phrase "free market economics" but it is just easier to say capitalism.

You are not the only one here who leans Libertarian. But I am guessing that you look at the social aspects of Libertarianism while I look at the fiscal. Fiscal Libertarians are fierce defenders of the free market. In fact the more extreme voluntaryists (a form of anarchy) will tell you that you cannot have a free market and a government. That is true but the market still functions very well with an extremely limited government like what our government was at the time of is founding. The bigger the government the less free the market. The less free the market the less free the individual.

So my opposition to government healthcare is that what has always happened in every other country who has it is costs skyrocket and quality suffers. Governments are just not set up to provide the kind of services that socialists promise. That is because and I have said a bunch of times on ImgFlip, governments are only good at 3 things; stealing, killing and enslaving. Every government throughout the history of mankind has proven that to be an absolute truth. Which is why George Washington compared government to fire and said that when controlled it can be a friend but left uncontrolled is your worst enemy. That wasn't his exact quote because I didn't memorize it but that is the sentiment of what he said.

So that problems that you see associated with capitalism are mostly because of corruption. Corruption is not inherent in capitalism. It is inherent in people, specifically narcissists. Everything that you find reprehensible in capitalism can also be found in socialism. It can be found everywhere, even in some churches.

"Then, under Trump, In 2018 and 2019, the ACA's marketplaces experienced considerable turmoil that resulted in huge swings in premiums."

You are only reinforcing the point that the government needs to get completely out of healthcare. No ACA, no collusion with insurance companies, no special protections from insurance companies, nothing. In the insurance companies cannot compete then they go out of business and newer and better forms of health options arise. In the end the consumer wins. What have had for a few decades and were we are heading is vastly costlier and poorer quality health care. Eventually it will become entirely run by the government and that is when the worst kind of eugenics starts.

Eugenics and socialism have a long history with each other because the individual is expendable in a collectivist environment. It is all about the collective.

Let the free market sort healthcare out. The free market is NOT economic eugenics. It is all about offering the highest quality and most affordable health care to the largest number of people. What we a had starting a few decades before the ACA and where we are heading is offering the worst service and the highest prices. The prices will be hidden in taxes. Just like how in order for Obama to pay for the ACA he gave us the largest tax increase ever known to mankind. More than any government previous or current. Part of that was because he let some tax cuts expire.

Taxation is theft.

"No true capitalist would embrace any of these ideas as it costs them more money as the employer."

Then you are not paying attention. Because there are capitalists, and lots of them who are doing this very thing. Earlier I said to you that if a business owner does not pay well enough or they treat their employees bad then people leave and businesses fall apart. Once on business starts offering all of those perks it isn't long before another one does the same thing. This is all in hopes of hiring and keeping the best employees.

The Unions claim to have changed American industry. Perhaps they did introduce a few ideas but the 8 hour work week was introduced by Henry Ford about 10 years before there were any unions in America. Ford also offered higher wages because he wanted his employees to also be customers so they could afford a Ford.

The unions at most have only represented 13% of labor in America. That is not enough to influence private industries they way they claim they have.

"Then you are not paying attention. Because there are capitalists, and lots of them who are doing this very thing. Earlier I said to you that if a business owner does not pay well enough or they treat their employees bad then people leave and businesses fall apart. Once on business starts offering all of those perks it isn't long before another one does the same thing. This is all in hopes of hiring and keeping the best employees."

Then they aren't true capitalists. True capitalists maximize profits and cut costs where ever possible. By taking value in the work of his employees and taking policies that his employees value, that is socialism. True capitalists don't care about the employee, they only care about buying labor power.

Fascism is a governmental system. So cops acting like fascists are basically part of that governmental system. I am not saying that our government is fascists especially when the police operate at the city or county level and not state or federal. So there probably are cities that are run like fascists states. I think COVID fully proved that. There are no laws requiring masks, social distancing, and businesses to be shut down. There are only edicts from fascist, Nazi, socialist or communist mayors and they are being enforced much like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin only without the genocides.

What I am seeing is run of the mill conservatives getting called fascist all the time. I've been called a fascist a whole bunch of times on ImgFlip. If those people truly understood what conservatives stand for they would know that were are as anti fascist as Antifa is. We are also anti communist, socialist and Nazi. Any system that values the collective over the individual is what we oppose. That is why I keep trying to tell people here on ImgFlip that collectivism is NOT a right wing ideology. Nazis and fascists may have been called right wing but that does not make them right wing at least in the U.S.

I have heard the argument that in order to make a fairer society that socialism should be mixed with capitalism. I vehemently disagree with that. It has been show in theory and in practice that free market economics is a self regulating system that always benefits the consumer. If the consumer finds that they are being ripped off or the product is inferior then that business fails. Even on the labor side. If the business does not pay high enough wages and/or treats their employees with contempt then the employees leave and the business fails.

There is no need for the government to stick its nose into business at all. When that happens that causes inflation every time. The government is a completely unnecessary business expense that gets passed on to the consumer. The more the government asserts itself the more the cost of goods and services go up. It is just a simple economic principle.

Socialistic ideas such as government run health care is simply a terrible idea. Governments never run on the same incentives as private business. They don't need to keep costs down because they think they have an endless supply of taxpayer dollars. So costs skyrocket, just like they did under Obama's quasi governmental healthcare.

"Socialistic ideas such as government run health care is simply a terrible idea. Governments never run on the same incentives as private business. They don't need to keep costs down because they think they have an endless supply of taxpayer dollars. So costs skyrocket, just like they did under Obama's quasi governmental healthcare." I believe you've been given a red herring. Before ACA, Premiums were going up by 8-10%/year. Whereas when ACA was installed, it was down to 6%/year.

Then, under Trump, In 2018 and 2019, the ACA's marketplaces experienced considerable turmoil that resulted in huge swings in premiums. In October 2017, the administration stopped directly reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions. The ACA required marketplace insurers to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level, so insurers increased their premiums (typically silver marketplace premiums ) to cover the additional cost. There were also concerns about the marketplaces’ stability and long-term viability, and these fears were reflected in the 2018 premiums.

Finally, because of Socialism integrated with Capitalism, workers were able to fight and earn:
- Holiday/Sick Pay
- Maternity Leave
- Family Medical Leave
- Health Insurance Mandate for Full Time
- 1.5x pay for overtime.
- Regulated hours
- Weekends
- Unemployment Insurance (kinda)
Then, insurance of all sorts is kind of a gray area.

No true capitalist would embrace any of these ideas as it costs them more money as the employer.

Beyond that, I don't support the notion of economic eugenics. Without socialism, or shades of communism, the disabled would die in our country. There would be no social programs to support them. To them, to suspend such things is evil as it goes against their common good. Before you say that there are disabled that need to find work, how do you answer to those who cannot work?

We can't accept one economic philosophy in its entirety and strive toward a pure capitalist society. In pure capitalism and free market, there *is* no black market. You're free to buy and sell whatever you please, including people, as the government cannot interfere in the free market.

The 18th century economist Adam Smith wrote the definitive book defining what the free market is. It was release in 1776 and was a best seller, especially in the colonies and especially with our founding fathers. That book is called The Wealth of Nations. I have not read the book and I hear it is hard to understand because of the English language differences between then and now. One day I will attempt it. Smith said that when a business is acting in its own best interest it is inadvertently benefiting society (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing on what I remember). What he meant by that is that the best interest is keeping that business running and prospering as long as it can. The reason for this is to keep the business running you must be competitive. You must offer the best product at the best price. If you do not you are not acting in your best interest.

Prior to The Wealth of Nations (or was it after, I don't remember) he wrote Moral Sentiments. The two ideas promoted by Smith is basically the key to prosperity, freedom and morality. You cannot be moral without freedom and you cannot be free (for very long) without morality.

This principle has been proven true every single time it has been tried. Smith was a Scot, not an American but he made America great for at least the first century and a few decades. Once the government started expanding and promising all sorts of social programs prosperity was crushed. And the ones who crushed it, the Progressives, immediately pointed the finger at capitalism.

Social programs sound great. They are sold on all of the good they will accomplish. And if you oppose them then your only goal is to hurt people. Far too many people are 100% convinced on this idea and a bunch of them are Republicans. What people forget is that there was a time when a poor coal miner could afford for the doctor to visit him in his home. Yes, technology has advanced exponentially since those times. But technology alone cause the cost of medical care skyrocket. It was government collusion with insurance companies.

A best-seller means nothing; Mein Kampf was a best seller. Many books have been best sellers. While aiming for the best product at the best price, this encourages cutting corners, skimping your employees as much as possible. Back then, many companies didn't make 300 times what their employees do. Insurance has nothing to do with this, this is just corporate greed which is a classic trope of capitalism, taking over and consuming the "greater good."
Was America really great in the first century of its existence? How do you define great? Can it compare to now? No, it can't. Child labor was permitted then, there were virtually no labor laws as comprehensive as we have now that protect employees.
One could also argue that it wasn't the tech alone that caused it to skyrocket, it's the "free market" for tuition, books, education, etc. People wanna get rich, so they charge rich people rich money, then the rich people need to charge more for their rich expenses, and the loop perpetuates...

Okay..... so much for keeping this concise. Oops.

A few years ago I read about a medical clinic that decided to offer a subscription service to their clinic. $75/month covered every service that clinic offered and included all prescriptions. The insurance companies go wind of this clinic and sued them because they were not an insurance company. The government sided with the insurance companies. At first a compromise deal was offered so that their subscription service now excluded prescriptions. That wasn't good enough. Eventually the clinic was forced to operate just like every other clinic and only accept medical insurance as a form of payment.

That is corporatism NOT capitalism. In capitalism the clinic would have flipped the insurance companies off and that would have been the end of it. That system would have eventually caught on nationwide and killed the insurance companies.

BTW I am firmly opposed to "Too big to fail". It is only when businesses fail that newer and better businesses are formed to offer better products. It is imperative that obsolete, poorly run or corrupt businesses fail.

And by corrupt I don't always mean greed. To quote Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street, *some* "greed is good". Why? It does not matter what the motivation is that a business owner has for going into business as long as they (as Adam Smith said) act in their best interest. If they do that they provide jobs and produce a good product. Some people only get into business because they cannot find the quality they want in the other products. Some people have a new idea. Some people just are sick and tired of being poor. And some are greedy. As long as they run an ethical business the results are always the same.

None of the collectivist governmental systems can even come close to the success of the free market. Not even close. They sound good on paper but in practice they are nightmares. And as Margaret Thatcher said, "Sooner or later they run out of other people's money". Collectivism is far too top heavy and too costly and eventually runs out of money.

That is why I opposed fascism, Nazism, communism and socialism. They have their differences but their foundation is the same.

Phew!!!! I'm done. Sorry about all of this. And I didn't address all of your points. I apologize for that also. But I am tired now plus today is my 63rd birthday, which means I'm an old fart. I'm going to have cake and enjoy the rest of the day.

I hate running out of replies. Anyway I am going to try to respond to all of the posts you made in as concise a matter as possible so that I don't use up any remaining posts from you that have replies on them.

1st, does ImgFlip have way of sending PM's. If not I am up for that some other way. I enjoy our conversations. I like that we can disagree without resorting to anger or name calling, except for the few times I was upset at what someone else said and came off sounding like an idiot to you. That won't happen again.

Anyway... I think there are tons of accusations of fascism but actual fascism there is none. However, I do agree with you about the police. I mostly support the police and perhaps the orders to attack those who were not participating in the violence came from higher up.

I also know how the media distorts things about groups. I got involved with the Tea Party movement. I went to several rallies. Yet I would watch the media portray us as nothing but a racist group. Even though many of the speakers at our events were from all different races. The Tea Party was only concerned about 3 things, fiscal responsibility, lowering taxes and wasteful spending. You would never know any of that if you just watched the news.

So I fully understand that they could be doing the same thing to Antifa and BLM. However, I do also believe that there were members of both groups who did do what I saw. There was a conservative independent reporter whose name I forget that went to several of the Antifa and BLM protests. He said during the day the peaceful protests happened but when it started getting dark the media would go home and building would burn. He eventually got beaten and ended up in the hospital. But that didn't stop him.

Hitler was a megalomaniac more than anything else. He, like Stalin, killed anyone who got in his way. He was a Socialist and then parted with them to create his own Nazi party which was based on Socialism. Once he got into power he attacked the Socialists because they found fault in Nazism.

Nazism is not a right wing version of Socialism. It is just another totalitarian government system and all total government systems are left wing. That would have to include monarchies as well. Any type of government where the people are less free is on the left.

Hitler ended up become his own governmental system. It was whatever he wanted when he wanted it but it was always about power and control.

Hitler would have imprisoned his own grandmother if he thought that she would stand in his way. He killed regardless of political ideology.

Right wing socialism is an oxymoron just like anarcho-communist.

What you must understand is that the right wing (at least in America) is about freedom and morality and nothing else. And by morality I mean self-governance. What we want is to control our own lives, not the lives of others. It has nothing to do with race, creed, culture, sexual preference or anything else. If one isn't free then none of us are free.

What the founding fathers tried with the Constitution was to create a government that honored that freedom and was prevented from involving itself in the personal lives of the people.

The Constitution was not anarchy because anarchies cannot last as long as there are malignant narcissists in the world. However, it was the next best thing. There are laws but the laws were only to maintain civility for those few who cannot or will not govern themselves.

We do not need or want an all powerful government that takes care of every need because such a government can be corrupted because malignant narcissists exist. So the only way mankind can be truly free is with a severely limited government.

That is the right wing that I know of. That is where I think most people on the right are. Definitely Libertarians are on board with most of what I just said although I am not a Libertarian, I am a Constitutionalist.

Also, some food for thought:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/night-of-the-long-knives

"In Germany, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler orders a bloody purge of his own political party, assassinating hundreds of Nazis whom he believed had the potential to become political enemies in the future. The leadership of the Nazi Storm Troopers (SA), whose four million members had helped bring Hitler to power in the early 1930s, was especially targeted. Hitler feared that some of his followers had taken his early “National Socialism” propaganda too seriously and thus might compromise his plan to suppress workers’ rights in exchange for German industry making the country war-ready.

In the early 1920s, the ranks of Hitler’s Nazi Party swelled with resentful Germans who sympathized with the party’s bitter hatred of Germany’s democratic government,

leftist politics

, and Jews.

In November 1923, after the German government resumed the payment of war reparations to Britain and France, the Nazis launched the “Beer Hall Putsch”–their first attempt at seizing the German government by force. Hitler hoped that his

nationalist

revolution in Bavaria would spread to the dissatisfied German army, which in turn would bring down the government in Berlin. However, the uprising was immediately suppressed, and Hitler was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison for high treason."

Right-wing are nationalists. They are xenophobic. They attack the left at every given chance.

Wake. Up.

You keep saying we are xenophobic and nationalists but you haven't said what lead you to believe that.

I think you are grossly mistaken and have been listening rather than thinking.

Opposing illegal immigration does NOT make a person xenophobic. There are all sorts of economic, medical and legal concerns to answer before you can just spout off that one is xenophobic.

I don't hate Mexicans. I do not have a phobia about Mexicans. My wife is half Mexican. I grew up in So. Cal. and if you don't have several Mexican friends in So. Cal. then you're either a hermit or an extreme introvert. My ex brother-in-law is from Argentina and I have a good relationship with him even though he divorced my wife's sister.

We have sovereignty laws for a reason. Every nation has sovereignty laws and most are much stricter than ours. Just because the right wants to enforce our sovereignty laws does not make us xenophobic.

If too many people come over our border at one time it could collapse our economy. Conversely if we send too many illegals home at one time it could also collapse our economy.

Diseases that we haven't seen in this country for at least half a century are showing up in cities closer to our southern border.

If just makes sense to put a stop to the violation of our federal laws. What makes absolutely no sense at all, especially during a pandemic, is to swing that border wide open and let as many people into this country as possible. Even as dumb as Biden is he is now considering completing Trumps border wall. But first he is going to have to stop doing what Democrats love to do and that is to give money to anyone who crosses the border illegally.

My wife's uncle came to America illegally. Back in the 80's he already had this idea that all you have to do is show up and people will put money in your hands. He's legal now because he got in on Reagan's amnesty bill.

None of that means we hate them. It has nothing to do with "they don't look like us" or any other stupid cliches from the left.

If it was Canadians, with their white skin, doing the same thing the reaction would be identical. But it is not and so the left, like they always do, has to make it about race. I am just so sick and tired of the left blaming everything on racism when none exists.

I have to remember that you're starting to appear as someone who genuinely wants to hold discussions, not to troll, so I'll do my best to respond to you:.

Xenophobia: I recognize that based off of one circumstance, one cannot claim Xenophobia with the Mexican border. But instead, I want to highlight a pattern of behavior that starts to paint a clear picture. We have the Muslim Travel Ban. This is a racist, xenophobic ban that wants to ban all travel from certain countries that have Islam as their greater religion in practice. Let a few bad apples spoil the entire population.

There's the "They're not sending their best, they're rapists, murderers..." Again, this rhetoric alludes to the notion that this caravan was predominantly filled with criminals of the worst sort. The idea here was to spread panic and fear about these caravans.

The Chinese Virus. "Kung Flu" Again, classifying the virus by its origin and equally blaming the Chinese for how they handled the virus when we have actions that could have been taken to reduce how the virus fell out of control in this country. Instead, people started attacking Chinese-Americans, blaming them for the virus. *sigh*

Those are a few examples.

"Diseases that we haven't seen in this country for at least half a century are showing up in cities closer to our southern border." That's interesting, being that many at the southern border believe vaccines are a means for the government to control and keep track of people.

"None of that means we hate them. It has nothing to do with "they don't look like us" or any other stupid cliches from the left." Well you see, I had a friend who stayed over here for many months, well beyond the time limit that a foreigner is allowed to be in this country, whenever I mention this person I used to put up a picture of him, me and another guy. People always assumed he was the PoC. So, while I understand what you're saying, it historically hasn't proven to be accurate all the time among the entire right, and gives credence to the "left cliche."

There is a very valid reason for the Muslims travel ban. Islam seeks to destroy America. They call us "the great Satan" and Israel "the little Satan". Obviously not all Muslims believe this but about half of the 1.6 billion member religion does and of that between 15% to 25% are trying to make it happen.

That is more of a safety issue than anything related to xenophobia. That would be like inviting Germans into America in 1942. Not all Germans were Nazis but how would you know the difference.

We are not at war with Islam like we were with the Nazis but Islam is at war with the rest of the world and has been ever since the days of Mohammad. That is why Muslims have never played will with others for the entire history of the religion. They are commanded in the Quran many times to kill the unbelievers. Allah even told Mohammad that it is okay to lie to the unbelievers if it promotes Islam. So really there is no valid way to tell if a Muslim is entering this country to kill Americans or just fleeing an oppressive regime or both. Considering that Muslims have a long history of killing Americans that dates back to the time of the founding fathers I am surprised we haven't banned them sooner.

That is the story behind the travel ban.

Aside from a few crackpots the vast majority of Americans don't associate the virus with the people from China. Calling it the Chinese Flu is no different than call the viral pandemic of a century ago the Spanish Flu. I think people are trying to assign meaning where there is no meaning. I've always just called it COVID.

Here is the thing that a whole lot of Americans don't understand. Hispanics are white. The "brown" Hispanics are those who have mixed ancestry between Spanish (and other European countries) and indigenous people. My wife had her DNA tested through Ancestry. com and found that she has a high percentage of indigenous Mexican DNA and yet she has fair skin, light brown hair and hazel eyes. My dad had a darker complexion than my wife. We used to think that it was because we had Cherokee in our ancestry but I also had my DNA checked through Ancestry and nope. I am 100% European and mostly Scottish. We don't know why my dad's side of the family has darker skin.

"A best-seller means nothing; Mein Kampf was a best seller."

I was merely stating what it was. Not that it was important because it was a best seller. It was well understood by all of the founding fathers and it was determined that for man to be free this was the best solution.

Since Smith's time many economists have expanded greatly on his work and proven him to be correct. Frederick Von Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and many others.

The free market, even in anarchy, is not perfect. There are a few things that socialism does better. However the price socialism exacts on the individual cannot compensate for any good it might do. The only economic system that has lifted more people out of the worst poverty is the free market. Collectivism, despite its lofty promises, has always put more people in the worst kinds of poverty.

The reason is all about how wealth is created. Collectivists have a finite believe that wealth is static and is something the rich have too much of and because of that the poor will never have any. That is NOT wealth.

Wealth is the intrinsic and utilitarian value of a good or service. Where collectivists get this wrong is they see that if I go into a hardware store and buy a hammer then some rich guy somewhere got my money and I am poorer for it. In reality that is a falsehood. Because that hammer has intrinsic value. I can use that hammer to build a house which I can sell and make a profit with. I am not poorer for having exchanged my money for a hammer.

This is based in the principle of the creation of wealth. If I grow peaches and you grow cherries then if I want cherries I need to make some kind of exchange so that you will be properly compensated for the loss of your cherries. So I offer a a certain number of peaches in exchange for some number of cherries. If you agree with that then you place more value on the peaches I give you than you do on the cherries. I also place more value on the cherries than my peaches. In the exchange we both walk away with something we have more value for. Value is wealth. We are both that much wealthier in the transaction.

The same applies with exchanging money for a product. We value the product more than the money we give for it. The same applies to labor. Your employer values the labor you perform more than the money he/she pays you for that labor and vice versa.

This is free market economics in its entirety.

"However the price socialism exacts on the individual cannot compensate for any good it might do."
>> This is a subjective claim as "the good" is relative to the beholder of the good. The "price" is also subjective to the one footing the bill. Usually, for most Americans, we're taxed 25% of our gross income. Usually. For me, I happily give that so the government can pay for our military, our infrastructure, our government, our police force, Fire department, National Guard, Navy, our education system (in true capitalism, everything is private schools and puts us back to the era where education was for those already rich.)

And you wanna go back on that? yeesh.

"This is a subjective claim as "the good" is relative to the beholder of the good."

Exactly. The good is relative to the individual because the individual is completely responsible for their own life. That that person determines as good for them is entirely their decision. No government could ever possibly know what is good for a specific individual. Even if the central planners were all Mensa members with IQs in the highest percentiles, they are still just too stupid to be able to determine the needs of an individual in a group of 100 individuals let alone nearly 350 million individuals. At best they can try to please everyone in a more general sense. But one size fits all never really does fit all.

"Usually, for most Americans, we're taxed 25% of our gross income."

I am glad you are happy to let the government steal what you earned and belongs to you. That's great. Just to not push what makes you happy on me. Do not force me to hand over what I earned. That is theft. The only reason I pay my taxes is only because of the threat of force that the government will unconstitutionally use on me.

What do you mean that I want to go back on anything. What I want is the most freedom possible without violating anyone else's rights.

Here is another thing that Adam Smith taught. If the government is going to take money from you then they MUST provide a service that is equal to the money they took.

I am okay with the military but they must ONLY be used to defend our liberty. Nothing else. The only thing that is more valuable than life is liberty therefore the only justifiable use of the military is to defend our liberty. I am not blaming our military, past and present, for anything. It is politicians who send the military into battle. The politicians are to blame for wars that were fought for any other reason than defending liberty.

Roads are handled by the city and it must be kept that way because if the federal government is building roads then I get absolutely no value in a road built in Minnesota that I have to pay for. There is a far greater likelihood that I will benefit from a road built in the city I live in. The federal government can build interstate highways because I use them. So do truckers that deliver products that I might purchase.

So any service they use for the money they confiscated from me must equal the value of the money taken. Unfortunately that is not the case and the feds waste soooooo much of what they take.

Btw, how was your cake?

It was good. :) I had it with Mississippi Mud ice cream.

"We can't accept one economic philosophy in its entirety and strive toward a pure capitalist society. In pure capitalism and free market, there *is* no black market. You're free to buy and sell whatever you please, including people, as the government cannot interfere in the free market."

This is why you cannot have prosperity with just freedom alone. There must also be morality. Morality is self governance based upon an unchanging and universal standard. The founding fathers fully understood this and that is why they injected so much Christian morality into this nation.

They also gave us a limited government with laws that protect the rights of the individual. You do not have to have an overbearing massive government to protect people's rights. Especially, when the absolute worst offenders of individual rights has always been governments. Far worse then even the most corrupt religions.

Socialism offends the most fundamental rights of all, private property ownership. If you cannot own your house, your land or yourself then someone else does and that someone else dictates what you can and cannot do with your home, land and self. John Lennon got it completely wrong with his communist anthem, "Imagine". It is a beautiful song but so completely wrong. The World Economic Forum is basically repeating the "Imagine no possessions" line from Imagine when they describe the Great Reset as "You will own nothing and you will be happy".

Collectivists just do not understand human nature or freedom at all. No one is happy living their lives entirely and completely for someone else. That is slavery not freedom.

"Socialism offends the most fundamental rights of all, private property ownership. If you cannot own your house, your land or yourself then someone else does and that someone else dictates what you can and cannot do with your home, land and self. John Lennon got it completely wrong with his communist anthem, "Imagine". It is a beautiful song but so completely wrong. The World Economic Forum is basically repeating the "Imagine no possessions" line from Imagine when they describe the Great Reset as "You will own nothing and you will be happy"."

See, that's what I'm talking about, the two words "Socialism" and "Communism" are used interchangeably to create a buzzword boogeyman. What you're describing isn't socialism, it's communism. Communism is when everyone owns everything. Socialism is when the people control the means of production.

They gave me a reply to this comment. Yay!!!!

Technically speaking communism is socialism but only slightly more authoritarian. Both are build on the foundation that there is no private ownership. The only way that labor can control the means of production is if they take ownership away from the person who owns the business. And labor will always mean government. It is the central planners who decide for the collective. Labor has no input because labor is made up of individuals and individuals are irrelevant.

One of things Marx incorporated into this theory is something that had been around for a while and had been disproved. The idea is that the price of goods are set by the amount of labor that went into making the product.

Why that does not work is because you can spend the same amount of labor producing utter crap that you can producing something good. This is why the Soviet Union had the most crappiest cars ever built. The ONLY way that quality is produced is when there is a profit incentive and consumer demand. If the consumer demands quality then businesses look for ways to produce quality in a way that will generate profits, not just for themselves but enough to pay all of their employees.

The other thing that labor theory gets entirely wrong is the value of a person's labor. A person's labor is not synonymous with the value of the individual. If your value as a person was based on your labor then if you could not produce as much as the rest of the workers then your value as a human being is worthless. Just another reason why the individual is expendable in socialism, communism, Nazism and fascism.

It is the core foundation of each of those government/economic systems that are identical. They may differ wildly in other areas but that core is the same. And that core is government (not labor) controls the means of production and they can only do that if they take away private property rights.

No collectivist nation has ever honored property rights. If they did they were not collectivist. They might be close to it but they are not fully there yet.

"Collectivists just do not understand human nature or freedom at all. No one is happy living their lives entirely and completely for someone else. That is slavery not freedom."

Notwithstanding your appeal to extremes of slavery, Jesus was a "collectivist" as he ensured he had bread and whine for all. Even the bible talks about finding the balance. The more I hear you talk about completely abolishing any notion of any of these constructs, I am hearing more and more that you're an extremist.

In truth, what God desires is for people to live for Him (Isaiah 43:7; Romans 12:1–2). We are not intended to live for our own selfish desires or even for other people. When we live for God and look to Him for our identity, worth, and purpose, we'll have a proper balance. Sometimes that will look like collectivism; sometimes that will look like individualism.

I dunno, letting thousands of Americans die from a deadly outbreak seems pretty on brand for the Regan era.

Speaking of which, Joe is sure doing a great job with that plan of his to wipe out the virus, hey? That's what I call leadership... not really. Without the Trump vaccines, Joe would be up to his demented eyeballs in new covid cases and deaths, without any plan, nor ability to do anything to stop them.

Yeah Joe is a schmuck 100%. At least he didn't downplay the virus long enough to preclude meaningful containment efforts. The cat was already out of the bag tbh.

Fay I and Pelosi downplayed the virus long after Trump reacted. Remember they calle shin xenophobic and racist because he limited travel from China. Fay I said it was nothing to worry about.