Zone1 Might Makes Right

[TruthNotBS]

The federal government is extremely limited in what it can legitimately constitutionally control in speech, conduct, etc. of the citizens and pretty much all of that is restricted to what the states themselves cannot effectively or reasonably control. And while I do not disagree that the laws you cited are good laws, it does not change the fact that the federal government was intended to be extremely limited in ANY control over the people.

You must have missed the qualification TOTAL control.

I'm a socialist and I don't want the government having total control over my life either. People erroneously assume that a democratic socialist like me, wants government to micromanage our lives, and that's simply not the case.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm a socialist and I don't want the government having total control over my life either. People erroneously assume that a democratic socialist like me, wants government to micromanage our lives, and that's simply not the case.

Then why aren't you voting for Trump?

The Biden/Harris administration is on record as wanting to:
--control your speech
--control what you will have available to read or can say on social media
--control what healthcare you will be able to access
--control what automobiles you will be able to purchase
--control what appliances you will be allowed to buy
--control what fuels you will be allowed to use
--control what housing will be most available to you
--control what self defense you will be allowed to utilize
--control your kids if they want irreversible operations and other transgendering treatment that parents won't allow.
--dictate what curriculum your children will have in their schools
Etc.

Trump is on record of wanting to put the choice for all of that back with the people where it belongs. But if you want a socialist society in your state or community and enough other people share that want, you can have it.

And be sure whether what you actually support is socialism or social contract. Those are very different things.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Then why aren't you voting for Trump?

The Biden/Harris administration is on record of wanting to:
--control your speech
--control what healthcare you will be able to access
--control what automobiles you will be able to purchase
--control what appliances you will be allowed to buy
--control what fuels you will be allowed to use
--control what housing will be most available to you
--control what self defense you will be allowed to utilize
--control your kids if they want irreversible operations and other transgendering treatment that parents won't allow.
--dictate what curriculum your children will have in their schools
Etc.

Trump is on record of wanting to put the choice for all of that back with the people where it belongs. And if you want a socialist society in your state or community and enough other people share that want, you can have it.

Both Trump and Kamala are full of poop. The Republicans and Democrats are essentially two sides of the same stinky turd. They're serving the same vested interests, and they just pretend to serve the working class. That's why I'm not voting for Trump or Kamala.

 

[Foxfyre]

Both Trump and Kamala are full of poop. The Republicans and Democrats are essentially two sides of the same stinky turd. They're serving the same vested interests, and they just pretend to serve the working class. That's why I'm not voting for Trump or Kamala.

If you are not voting for Trump you are voting for Kamala. And that's a fact. See the amendment to my previous post responding to you.

Please understand the difference between socialism and social contract. They are very different things. Trump is a huge supporter of social contract even though he does not use that term and may not even know what it is. Kamala is a pure Marxist socialist that sees a totalitarian government, a government controlled by the Marxist socialists of course, as the ultimate goal.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If you are not voting for Trump you are voting for Kamala. And that's a fact. See the amendment to my previous post responding to you.

Please understand the difference between socialism and social contract. They are very different things. Trump is a huge supporter of social contract even though he does not use that term and may not even know what it is. Kamala is a pure Marxist socialist that sees a totalitarian government, a government controlled by the Marxist socialists of course, as the ultimate goal.

They're both horrible, hence none of them get my vote. As a matter of conscience, I won't vote for any of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're both horrible, hence none of them get my vote. As a matter of conscience, I won't vote for any of them.

Sorry to hear that because a non vote is a vote for Kamala. I don't know how you square your conscience with that but it's your conscience.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Sorry to hear that because a non vote is a vote for Kamala. I don't know how you square your conscience with that but it's your conscience.

If I vote for Kamala, then that's a......vote for Kamala. If I vote for Trump, then that's a vote for Trump. If I don't vote, it's a vote for no one. Believe whatever nonsense toots your horn.

​

 

[Foxfyre]

If I vote for Kamala, then that's a......vote for Kamala. If I vote for Trump, then that's a vote for Trump. If I don't vote, it's a vote for no one. Believe whatever nonsense toots your horn.

View attachment 1011303​

The effect however benefits Kamala. You can say that isn't the case, but some of the worst evil are those who shrug and choose not to confront it and then say it wasn't their fault.

 

[buttercup]

Theistic religions with personal deities, perfectly underscore the notion of "might makes right". These religious folks conjure up in their minds a god-being that reflects all of their hopes and dreams, creating god in their own human image, and then claim that whatever that god says in his man-made holy book or through a human priesthood, is to be considered THE LAW. Might makes right is granting this personal god-being, worshipped by religious folks, a license to do whatever he wants, because he's ALMIGHTY and the eternal one, who supposedly is in a position to judge and condemn us to hell for not converting to his religion (one religion of many).

He lives in heaven, in a mansion, and has a checking account with an infinite balance. He's absolutely secure, in every way imaginable. He doesn't have to worry about poverty, disease, death..etc, because none of those conditions can touch him. His hands are smooth and manicured.

I had a feeling someone was going to say something like that. I'm surprised that it took 6 pages before that claim came up.

Off the top of my head, here's what I have to say about that. You're comparing apples to oranges. God, as the source of all life and all that exists, is not "mighty" in the same way that a fallible human being or a corrupt regime is "mighty." God IS truth, goodness, justice, etc. So to say that God is "might makes right" completely leaves out the fact that God is not a mere human being who could have power and strength apart from goodness. In fact, it is completely illogical and absurd to think that the Creator could ever be evil or wrong, because goodness itself, and truth and justice are rooted in the character of God. I think it was ding earlier on the thread who said "right makes right." That would be more accurate, when talking about God.

 

[buttercup]

I'm no Atheist but I have been a very long time student of honest history, media watcher, philosophic analyzer of social trends and customs, and, while I claim no special credentials or expertise, I am fairly confident in my conclusions.

Via the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the Founders intended this country to be a great experiment in a unique new deal, i.e. a government of, for and by the people instead of a dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy or any other form of totalitarian government.

The poor would have unrestricted unalienable rights with the rich and opportunity to become less poor or even become rich.

The strong would not prey on the weak but the unalienable rights of all would be protected impartially and consistently.

"Might" would be the will of the people tempered by a representative government so that the smaller states would not be totally overrun by the will of the larger states. The will of the people in several smaller states could override oppressive intent of a larger state even as those in the larger states would rightfully have advantage of more representatives because they have more people. And all states, the smallest to the largest, are equal in the Senate with the exact same number of representatives there.

The current government looks at it that government might should have total say in what the people are allowed to say, think, express, do, what property they will be allowed to have, what products they will be allowed to have. Hopefully the majority of U.S. citizens still believe in the Founders model to prevent a government in which 'might makes right.'

Yes. I think direct democracy could be an example of "might makes right." (mob rule) And yeah, our founders were trying to avoid that. Whether or not that actually succeeded is another matter, because unfortunately I think at this point power being in the hands of We the People is just an illusion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. I think direct democracy could be an example of "might makes right." (mob rule) And yeah, our founders were trying to avoid that. Whether or not that actually succeeded is another matter, because unfortunately I think at this point power being in the hands of We the People is just an illusion.

Only because we are being governed by Marxists intent on achieving the totalitarian stage of Marxism. The intent is that the people have no power whatsoever other than what the government decides to allow them which won't be much if any. No government, having achieved the totalitarian stage of Marxism, has ever willingly dissolved it as Marx/Engles envisioned.

 

[buttercup]

Only because we are being governed by Marxists intent on achieving the totalitarian stage of Marxism. The intent is that the people have no power whatsoever other than what the government decides to allow them which won't be much if any. No government, having achieved the totalitarian stage of Marxism, has ever willingly dissolved it as Marx/Engles envisioned.

I don't want to get too off topic, but I see it a little differently. Over the years I've realized that the actual powers-that-shouldn't-be are oligarchs, who control both sides, "left" and "right." That's why I believe we only have the illusion of choice, because the globalist PTSB have puppets on both "sides" who might say the right things, but ultimately we keep going in the same direction.

G. Edward Griffin explains it in this clip...

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want to get too off topic, but I see it a little differently. Over the years I've realized that the actual powers-that-shouldn't-be are oligarchs, who control both sides, "left" and "right." That's why I believe we only have the illusion of choice, because the globalist PTSB have puppets on both "sides" who might say the right things, but ultimately we keep going in the same direction.

G. Edward Griffin explains it in this clip...

View attachment 1011359

Certainly there are those on both sides who govern badly, even destructively.

But nobody on what is now the American right advocates totalitarian government or anything remotely resembling that. And even when they legislate badly on this or that issue, there is always that window of opportunity to reverse that legislation and do it better.

All the efforts to give government total 'might'/power to dictate what liberties/unalienable rights, choices, options, opportunities we will have are coming from the American left. And that's a fact.

 

[buttercup]

Certainly there are those on both sides who govern badly, even destructively.

But nobody on what is now the American right advocates totalitarian government or anything remotely resembling that. And even when they legislate badly on this or that issue, there is always that window of opportunity to reverse that legislation and do it better.

All the efforts to give government total 'might'/power to dictate what liberties/unalienable rights, choices, options, opportunities we will have are coming from the American left. And that's a fact.

If you're talking about regular people when you say "the American right"... you're missing my point. It doesn't matter what regular people advocate for, if our entire system is a sham. What I was saying was that the powers-that-shouldn't-be are oligarchs / globalists who control both sides of the aisle. They are subversive. Sure, there are probably decent people in politics at the lower levels who are sincere and truly care about what is best for our country. But what I was talking about was the highest levels. I know no one wants to hear this, but imho presidents these days are just puppets, or spokespeople, for the PTSB. That's why nothing significant changes, we're slowly but surely going toward what they want, an authoritarian world government. It won't be anything like the form of government we are supposed to have, where individual rights matter. But this actually could be a topic for a thread of its own.

 

[BreezeWood]

That would be more accurate, when talking about God.

they were talking about the false desert bibles made to suit the special interests of their corrupt congregations.

 

[BreezeWood]

But nobody on what is now the American right advocates totalitarian government or anything remotely resembling that.

you are a joke ...

In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.

or separate but equal education - champion of the american right ...

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The Court said, “separate is not equal,” and segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

desert dwellers have always been at the forefront where persecution and victimization of the innocent is made into a daily routine as their standard way of life.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I had a feeling someone was going to say something like that. I'm surprised that it took 6 pages before that claim came up.

Off the top of my head, here's what I have to say about that. You're comparing apples to oranges. God, as the source of all life and all that exists, is not "mighty" in the same way that a fallible human being or a corrupt regime is "mighty." God IS truth, goodness, justice, etc. So to say that God is "might makes right" completely leaves out the fact that God is not a mere human being who could have power and strength apart from goodness. In fact, it is completely illogical and absurd to think that the Creator could ever be evil or wrong, because goodness itself, and truth and justice are rooted in the character of God. I think it was ding earlier on the thread who said "right makes right." That would be more accurate, when talking about God.

The same people who say their god is love, believe that god tortures people in hell for all eternity for not converting to the right brand of Christianity.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The effect however benefits Kamala. You can say that isn't the case, but some of the worst evil are those who shrug and choose not to confront it and then say it wasn't their fault.

I confront evil in other ways, not by casting my vote for it. I'm an activist and that's the way that I resist, not by voting for the so-called "lesser evil", that's just a cop-out.

 

[Foxfyre]

you are a joke ...



or separate but equal education - champion of the american right ...



desert dwellers have always been at the forefront where persecution and victimization of the innocent is made into a daily routine as their standard way of life.

you are a joke ...



or separate but equal education - champion of the american right ...



desert dwellers have always been at the forefront where persecution and victimization of the innocent is made into a daily routine as their standard way of life.

Whatever you are using for sources is no doubt the

you are a joke ...



or separate but equal education - champion of the american right ...



desert dwellers have always been at the forefront where persecution and victimization of the innocent is made into a daily routine as their standard way of life.

The Supreme court took no position whatsoever on a person's right to an abortion. It did rightfully take a position that the Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to dictate any policy on the matter of abortion and that the Constitution intended the people themselves in the various states to decide such matters. Their ruling is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

The Supreme Court rightfully ended segregation that mostly DEMOCRATS (not those on the right) had kept in place with Jim Crow laws. It rightfully ruled that nobody has the right to favor one group of people over another or to subjugate any group of people because of race, ethnicity, country of origin etc. Their ruling is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

And neither issue in any way addresses my point that it isn't the American right wanting totalitarian government but those radical Marxists, all leftist, who are doing their damndest to have that.

 

[dblack]

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

Why??