One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish

What to make of this two party system .. where both fish are working to install a collectivist form of Tyranny - just from different sides of the fence.

We have Blue fighting for Bodily Autonomy (Abortion) - Red fighting for Bodily Autonomy (Vax Mandate)

Why is this ? - because both sides are fighting against bodily autonomy .. and both are winning that fight .. as divided we fall.

We have a nation of people raised to believe in "Freedom" - but only for freedoms they agree with .. and since everyone has a different list - Freedom loses.

 

Translation; You can't defend the actions of Repubs in tearing the fabric of democracy so you make a false equivalence. I've seen it dozens and dozens of times. It never gets more convincing.

 

I did not defend the actions of Repubs .. You cry "False equivalence" - but fail to state what this false equivalence is .. and so your post but a cry from the peanut gallery .. name calling coupled with projection ... in desperate attempt to deflect fro the fact that you who is unable to defend the actions of Dems in tearing the fabric of democracy.

Did you think taring others with your failings "I have seen it dozens of times" - constitutes a convincing argument ?

Sup Lee .. afraid to take a stand ?

 

I don’t like fish. Any fish. I don’t consume fish. I don’t feed fish if I can help it. Fish are slimy scaly bastards with gaping mouths. Fish stink.

 

Yes the basic problem is that freedom flies in the face of what government wants, which is power and control. If we reduce the size of government we increase our level of freedom. It couldn't be any more simple than that.

 

I'm making cod cakes for dinner tonight. Fish is an excellent way to get protein without all the fat and calories of red meat. My cod cakes aren't slimy, scaly or smelly. The only gaping mouth will be mine.

 

On the other hand when I voted here on Saturday I had to rank one to six as there were six different parties. It was a real struggle working out who to put last

 

I think I’ve eaten fish once. It was like green lima beans. Just there. Not good, not bad, just there. As a food I think fish is fine nutrition.

As the political analogy goes fish should be avoided at all costs. It’s full of toxins that will destroy your brain.

I love the gaping mouth part…LOL

 

The best system would have no political parties. The next best would have many viable political parties. The two party system is in third place for me. The worst, of course, is a single party system.

 

Here is a good way to cook lima beans. Start with hard dry beans. Put them in a pot of water and bring them to a boil. Turn off the heat, pour out water until the level just barely reaches the top of the beans and let them cool. Prepare onion, bell pepper, garlic, bay leaf, salt, pepper and a little vinegar and olive oil and add it all to the pot. turn on the heat and simmer for two hours. Serve the beans on rice.

It can be a side dish or a vegetarian entree with some protein, vegetables very little fat and fewer calories than the full stomach would indicate. Beans are close to being the perfect food for humans. Maybe I will make some beans to go with the cod cakes. I'm a big fan of filet mignon and pork tenderloin too, by the way. My slow cooked baby back ribs with home made BBQ sauce always please.

 

You are on the right track - nail on the head - understanding that the natural tendency of Gov't is to increase power and control but then fall off the turnip truck - giving a simplistic solution to a complex problem .. then claiming the problem will be solved by this solution.

Sometimes best way to refute a flawed position is to go with the flow -- let the position fail under its own weight.

So then -- by how much should Gov't be reduced 10% 50% .. and which parts are we reducing-removing ? - and how will this impact the power control equation ?

 

With all respect to the op bodily autonomy does not only apply to the mother but the child she carries as well.

 

An antifishist!

 

They are both vicious fishists.

 

Thank you - for making an argument .. albeit one that will fail ... but it heads in the right direction. "Someone" Lee .. made an argument earlier claiming false equivalency .. but gave no substantiation of any kind for claim

You have actually made a better shot at false equivalency .. well .. by actually taking a shot for one .. substantiating your claim .. even though this was not your claim .. but .. it could be should you choose .. and that would fail as well .. but .. just saying . .was much better attempt than..peanut gallery guy .. who we should let answer this question .. showing some vestage of a clue of the side he claims to support... but never mind that.

We are talking a question of law here .. not of moral belief .. and while you may "believe" the single cell at conception aka "the mighty zygote" is a person .. you can not prove this ... there is no scientific consensus on this .. best place you can get to is "Experts Disagree" and thus you have committed an assumed premise fallacy .. assuming that a person exists .a person with rights .. including the right to life.

on the basis of this claim you wish to make law .. "Experts Disagree" is hardly a good justification for law .. so we have to default to consent of the governed .. needing "overwhelming majority consent" 2/3rds in order to claim legitimacy.

So the way to get around this inconvenient founding principle - principle of Constitutional Republic - Principle of both Classical LIberalism and Republicanism .. is what ? .. how do we manage our way around this dillemma ..

Come on Lee .. show us your skills .. defend the Red side .. garys .. tell me true tell me why .. was Jesus crucified .. was it for this that .. daddy died .. if it wasn't for the brits .. being so good at bulding ships .. all their sons committing .. suicide .. or something like that .. Pink Floyd .. Final Cut.

Come on lads .. tell me true tell me why .. how do we manage to subvert this principle of constitutional republic .. you should both be well schooled .. having listened to my rants .. and be able to answer in one word. 14 letters ..

 

Zygote might be a relevant argument were abortions performed within 48 hours of conception...

 

I have answered that question many times on the forum. Federal government should defend the nation, deal and treat with other nations, maintain a stable currency and resolve interstate disputes. And, of course, it should operate a postal system because the constitution specifies it. Every thing else belongs in the states, the private sector or the trash can. Following the 10th amendment would remove about 70% of federal government. That is my answer. Nobody agrees with me so you can develop your own. Maybe it will be more popular than mine.

 

1) Abortions are performed within 48 hours of conception
2) Relevant regardless as "personhood at conception" is what is being used as justification for law.

So .. as indicated previously .. fail x 2

 

Nothing to agree with here .. no explanation of how this will impact the power control equation. The above solution may well address some portion of the fiscal irresponsibility problem - but does nothing to address the power-control issue.

Second .. power and control is welded not just by the Feds .. but also by State and Municipal Gov't .. all your plan does is move the power from one Gov't agency to another.. Gov't as a solution to Gov't.

 

Less government, less power and control.

You didn't read the second paragraph of what I wrote. It is government with competition as a solution to government with unlimited power. You are in good company. Nobody likes radical ideas like this. It was radical in the 18th century when the founders did what they did. After having abandoned that foundation it is even more radical today.

 

You have not - in any way - shape - or form - linked less power and control to less Gov't .. you are talking generality gibberish .. just making broad platitudinal claims ... with no substance... then claiming these ideas are radical - but you have presented no ideas .. no substantiation for claim

Naked claims and platitudes do not an argument make .. nothing radical about having no ideas ....this is typical politician

 

What? I can't express an opinion without attacks from the peanut gallery? I made no claims. I have presented all kinds of ideas. You didn't need to read them or like them. Knock it off.

 

Who called you names .. attacked you. Stating that you have not substantiated your claims .. is not name calling .. nor personal attack. Sorry that you feel attacked by information that conflicts with your silly claim .. no reason is this to shoot the messenger however.

Then you run high tail from the hill you were trying to hold .. stating you didn't make any claims .. but OK .. if you did not make the claim that reducing the size of Gov't is the solution to power and control .. I must be mistaking you for someone else .. tally ho .. my apologies :{

 

You didn't debate. You didn't address what I said. You just attacked. I made no claims. I simply expressed an opinion.

Please explain from what I ran. Please be specific because it is mystery to me.

 

thay sounds great. i like fish as well, and the ol' lady makes killer cod fish balls.

for memorial day, maybe a 10 or 12 lb red snapper (or maybe a grouper, depending on what the nephew catches.) skin side down on the grill. cover that sucker with tomato slices, lemon slices, onion slices, minced garlic and parmesan cheeze. cook low and slow but not too long ...........