Who is more intolerant of political opponents the "left" or "the right"

[sealybobo]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I have officially joined the GOP. I have embraced their philosophy and I'm seeing their side of things.

Will this time be like bush Tom delay and hastert? I sure hope not.

We no longer want to encourage people to have lots of kids. We are already too overpopulated. So why give the masses public school? Public schools should be a thing of the past. If you have kids pay for their school.

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

I like that idea

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I have officially joined the GOP. I have embraced their philosophy and I'm seeing their side of things.

Will this time be like bush Tom delay and hastert? I sure hope not.

We no longer want to encourage people to have lots of kids. We are already too overpopulated. So why give the masses public school? Public schools should be a thing of the past. If you have kids pay for their school.

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

I like that idea

Your posts have been a little odd today, LOL
Im not sure if you really like the idea or not. Personally, I do like the idea, it would force an awful lot of people to STFU when the started in about their money going to where they dont want it to go. We would find out really fast who just does not want to spend their money on charity at all and who honestly just would rather spend it where they find important. ( basically this would disproportionately affect the conservatives in that aspect of it)

 

[sealybobo]

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

I like that idea

Your posts have been a little odd today, LOL
Im not sure if you really like the idea or not. Personally, I do like the idea, it would force an awful lot of people to STFU when the started in about their money going to where they dont want it to go. We would find out really fast who just does not want to spend their money on charity at all and who honestly just would rather spend it where they find important. ( basically this would disproportionately affect the conservatives in that aspect of it)

I do like the idea. Have you seen my new thread I am now a Republican. Ive had it with liberalism. The people who I argued and faught for don't deserve it.

It dawned on me we are overpopulated and liberalism encourages poor people to breed

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

I like that idea

Your posts have been a little odd today, LOL
Im not sure if you really like the idea or not. Personally, I do like the idea, it would force an awful lot of people to STFU when the started in about their money going to where they dont want it to go. We would find out really fast who just does not want to spend their money on charity at all and who honestly just would rather spend it where they find important. ( basically this would disproportionately affect the conservatives in that aspect of it)

I do like the idea. Have you seen my new thread I am now a Republican. Ive had it with liberalism. The people who I argued and faught for don't deserve it.

It dawned on me we are overpopulated and liberalism encourages poor people to breed

I saw that, thats what Im talking about, cant tell if you are serious or making fun of conservatives way of thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

I like that idea

Your posts have been a little odd today, LOL
Im not sure if you really like the idea or not. Personally, I do like the idea, it would force an awful lot of people to STFU when the started in about their money going to where they dont want it to go. We would find out really fast who just does not want to spend their money on charity at all and who honestly just would rather spend it where they find important. ( basically this would disproportionately affect the conservatives in that aspect of it)

I do like the idea. Have you seen my new thread I am now a Republican. Ive had it with liberalism. The people who I argued and faught for don't deserve it.

It dawned on me we are overpopulated and liberalism encourages poor people to breed

I saw that, thats what Im talking about, cant tell if you are serious or making fun of conservatives way of thinking.

Im being serious. I think my intentions were in the right place and still think labor should have a seat at the table but I'm seeing now that we have too many poor people to just keep giving out the welfare ssi Medicaid and food stamps to poor people forever.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

One only has to look as far as any American campus to get your answer.

 

[Tilly]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I have officially joined the GOP. I have embraced their philosophy and I'm seeing their side of things.

Will this time be like bush Tom delay and hastert? I sure hope not.

We no longer want to encourage people to have lots of kids. We are already too overpopulated. So why give the masses public school? Public schools should be a thing of the past. If you have kids pay for their school.

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

It is a lovely idea that would certainly mean people would have control over where their money goes and they would also not have to contribute to things they are not comfortable supporting. However, there is a risk that some issues might receive very littlle support. For example, there are usually 'Cinderella services' in health care systems, often mental health and the elderly, for example.

 

[Eloy]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I have officially joined the GOP. I have embraced their philosophy and I'm seeing their side of things.

Will this time be like bush Tom delay and hastert? I sure hope not.

We no longer want to encourage people to have lots of kids. We are already too overpopulated. So why give the masses public school? Public schools should be a thing of the past. If you have kids pay for their school.

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

The right to medical care cannot depend on the whim of people supporting charities.

 

[Andylusion]

I have officially joined the GOP. I have embraced their philosophy and I'm seeing their side of things.

Will this time be like bush Tom delay and hastert? I sure hope not.

We no longer want to encourage people to have lots of kids. We are already too overpopulated. So why give the masses public school? Public schools should be a thing of the past. If you have kids pay for their school.

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

The right to medical care cannot depend on the whim of people supporting charities.

You don't have a "right to medical care". You have the right to earn it (by earning money and paying for it), or the right ask for it (be requesting it from charities).

There is no "right" to other people's labor.

And when you demand it, you end up not getting it. That's why all the socialized systems around the world have rationing.

 

[Andylusion]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

Both are equally intolerant--especially at their base.

Really... I'm as far right-wing as one could possibly get. I don't remember ever protesting Obama, or attacking Obama supporters on the street. Or saying "he's not my president".

On what basis do you make this claim?

 

[Andylusion]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Really......

You are comparing women who choose to spread their legs for men..... to people who don't have legs to spread, or can't spread them if they wanted to? Do you realize how stupid you look to the majority of the planet right now?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Really......

You are comparing women who choose to spread their legs for men..... to people who don't have legs to spread, or can't spread them if they wanted to? Do you realize how stupid you look to the majority of the planet right now?

Lot of women hating going on there Andy. You should adjust your moral compass next time you get off your high horse.

 

[Andylusion]

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Really......

You are comparing women who choose to spread their legs for men..... to people who don't have legs to spread, or can't spread them if they wanted to? Do you realize how stupid you look to the majority of the planet right now?

Lot of women hating going on there Andy. You should adjust your moral compass next time you get off your high horse.

Lot of lying going on there Tommy. Maybe you should try and even have a moral compass before getting on your high horse.

 

[Eloy]

People do pay for their public schools through taxes.

Have you ever been to Detroit? Do you know how little those people pay in property taxes? We pick up the tab for poor people

And people pay the same no matter if they have zero or 5 kids. How about we only fund public schools for the next 13 years. Everyone who has a kid in 2 years from now will have to pay for private school.

Your way help people who can't afford kids have kids. The GOP way would lower birth rates.

I do not believe it is the government's business what size families are.

you are correct, and I dont believe that its the governments ( Taxpayers ) duty to make sure those families are financially cared for.
and by saying this I am not suggesting that NONE of my money goes to various "charities" I am suggesting that if I dont have to pay for something I dont agree with, then those saved dollars could be spent on something I do have compassion for.
Maybe the answer can be found in an easier way.
I wonder what would happen if instead of the government taking your money via taxes and redistributing it to various social programs, nothing was taken by the government, however, a certain percentage of income would have to be contributed by the individual taxpayer to some charitable cause or program. For example, lets say when I do my taxes, I end up showing that my charitable contribution for the year has to be no less than $2500.00. Along with my tax, I file a contribution work sheet that indicates where my money will be spent, I can choose for it to go into social programs like welfare or food stamps, or I can say to fund planned parenthood, or maybe go to a fund for medical bills for the uninsured or have an option that allows us to submit proof that we contributed to something charitable and for the good of society over the year, That way there is still the same (or more)money going to the charitable funds, but it is more aligned with what the taxpayers actually want to spend on. There would be less of a reason to complain.

The right to medical care cannot depend on the whim of people supporting charities.

You don't have a "right to medical care". You have the right to earn it (by earning money and paying for it), or the right ask for it (be requesting it from charities).

There is no "right" to other people's labor.

And when you demand it, you end up not getting it. That's why all the socialized systems around the world have rationing.

You are, of course, correct. Americans do not recognize the human right to medical care.

• The World Health Organization Constitution enshrines “…the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.”

Health and human rights

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

 

[Londoner]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

As usual, this is extremely well said.

For me, I get at it from absolutism versus pluralism. Permit me to stumble through this less elegantly than you have.

I see the Right as more religious and absolutist. Meaning, they don’t see values/beliefs as flexible or evolving with culture. They see timeless inflexible truths, anchored by supra-objective forces like God, Tradition or Nation. You can’t argue against these things - they are a fixed part of the universe available to either common sense or faith. This is why the right’s concept of education is more about transfering the correct knowledge/traditions to students. In this context students are seen as receptacles of truth (as opposed to creators). On this reading, alternate traditions and alternative values and alternative Constitutional interpretations (Originalism versus Living Document) cannot be tolerated because they are simply wrong. Contrast this with the ultimate Liberal, John Dewey, who thinks students should, through argument and civic participation (e.g., voting), construct values, laws, culture from their evolving sense of self and world. On this reading, you can't simply assert what is true, you have to argue and vote for it. There is no higher arbiter to point to like God or Tradition to settle disputes.

Perhaps it would be easier to look at how the Left’s relativism and multiculturalism fits in. If you believe that your value system is not better or more accurate than any other, or if you believe that there is a plurality of values or correct ways to live, does this imply a kind of built-in tolerance or openness to difference? The Right is more Platonist or Cartesian (guided by fixed/timeless truths); and the Left is more Pluralistic (there is no central or higher objective Truth, but rather an endless variety of competing values and interpretations that are best adjudicated by Democratic mechanisms rather than appeals to First Principals, Biblical Commandments, Traditional hierarchies etc. This is where the Church gives way to the Polis). [FYI: I'm emphatically not saying the Left is tolerant in practice]

 

[Eloy]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

That depends on where you live, either in a country that honors, in its laws, the right of health care to all persons or one that doesn't.

 

[Londoner]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is socialized and exploited across the private sector, which begs Washington for subsidies and bailouts? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered? Do you understand how fiscal policy works, or where banks get the easy money to drive the credit system that keep the economy afloat? Have you ever researched the subsidies that flowed into Boeing and commercial aviation through the defense budget, or all the life-improving commercial electronics that came out of the Cold War NASA and Defense budgets? Or what about the military protection of overseas oil fields or the supply chains and trade routes of our economic system? Or what about the fact that the modern Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is exploited across commercial sectors? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

how about you first step outside of the typical talking points and come up with something that is not used by me, as in defense, satellite systems, roads bridges airports dams schools parks etc... and lets not forget fire and rescue, we all pay into that, but we also all use it.
healthcare is not one of those things, if you want to claim it is then by all means lets include food, fuel, energy shoes clothing, housing, everything. Lets not be responsible for any part of our lives at all.

 

[EverCurious]

^ We already fucking do, they call it "welfare" and the employed people are getting really sick of paying for it.