Posted on Aug 18, 2018
Between Independents, Democrats, and Republicans, who would you say deliberately misrepresents their opposition more severely and/or often?
560
21
29
2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans Democrats
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
2
2
0
I would say "Ditto" to SPC Joseph Wojcik , but I do politics. However, the second part of his comment is spot on. "...the party that controls the Media, entertainment, and academic industries" deliverately misrepresents their opposition more severely and/or often" If Republicans or Independents fit that description, you had best believe that they would be the "guilty" party. However, there is no doubt that the Left/Democrats hold sway in those arenas.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Maj John Bell “I want no part of socialism, a well proven failure”
His words, not mine. Everything I listed is a socialist system.
His words, not mine. Everything I listed is a socialist system.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish Are you assuming I’m a leftist because I appear to disagree with your political leanings?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SSgt (Join to see) - Social welfare spending DOES NOT does not equal socialism. It never has. That is a cover story used by the left and apologists for proponents of state sanctioned income redistribution.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. But in what police department does the rookie road officer have equal say to the chief in how the police carry out their functions.
Today, some (probably most) socialists have also co-opted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, progressive social welfare and liberalism. Just because most socialist want a nanny state, that doesn't mean state provided services are examples of socialism, or for that matter part of nanny statism.
Using your definition of socialism, "government" is a synonym for "socialism." I can logically argue that EVERY government, even the most despotic tyranny is in power with the passive willingness of the people, ergo the people have chosen to be raped, pillaged, and burned.
You'd be better off leveling parts of your argument against me. I freely admit that I believe ANY social welfare spending should not be the province of a government of a free people. Police, firefighters, public libraries, roads, public hospitals etc. etc. that serve the general welfare of the governed, are AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE GOVERNED, and deemed necessary by the governed directly or through their duly elected representatives, are legitimate functions of government.
Social Welfare spending fails a critical test. It is NOT AVAILABLE to all of the governed. My wife and I can go to the county courthouse and apply for every kind of Federal, State, and County social welfare spending. We aren't going to get it. Therefore some portion of my tax dollars have been forcibly wrested from my control and redistributed to a small but significant portion of the population who are privileged to government services which I am not, essentially an "oligarchy" of the impoverished.
Charity/charitable giving should come from the individual's compassion not because the state says so, and uses its police powers if I choose not to comply. That is not socialism that is state sanctioned strong arm robbery.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. But in what police department does the rookie road officer have equal say to the chief in how the police carry out their functions.
Today, some (probably most) socialists have also co-opted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, progressive social welfare and liberalism. Just because most socialist want a nanny state, that doesn't mean state provided services are examples of socialism, or for that matter part of nanny statism.
Using your definition of socialism, "government" is a synonym for "socialism." I can logically argue that EVERY government, even the most despotic tyranny is in power with the passive willingness of the people, ergo the people have chosen to be raped, pillaged, and burned.
You'd be better off leveling parts of your argument against me. I freely admit that I believe ANY social welfare spending should not be the province of a government of a free people. Police, firefighters, public libraries, roads, public hospitals etc. etc. that serve the general welfare of the governed, are AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE GOVERNED, and deemed necessary by the governed directly or through their duly elected representatives, are legitimate functions of government.
Social Welfare spending fails a critical test. It is NOT AVAILABLE to all of the governed. My wife and I can go to the county courthouse and apply for every kind of Federal, State, and County social welfare spending. We aren't going to get it. Therefore some portion of my tax dollars have been forcibly wrested from my control and redistributed to a small but significant portion of the population who are privileged to government services which I am not, essentially an "oligarchy" of the impoverished.
Charity/charitable giving should come from the individual's compassion not because the state says so, and uses its police powers if I choose not to comply. That is not socialism that is state sanctioned strong arm robbery.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I can speak to my own perspectives of the opposite views. I do not misrepresent those views, I strive to get all the facts I can, and in the end it is essentially my opinion vs that of the opposition which remains. It's up to you to decide which one you agree with.
On that note, I can also clearly see bias in places like the media, the group speak in different communities of interest, and the attempts by some to influence others through false rhetoric and/or uneducated/misinformed positions.
On that note, I can also clearly see bias in places like the media, the group speak in different communities of interest, and the attempts by some to influence others through false rhetoric and/or uneducated/misinformed positions.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google