Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Mine is in the 10 Ten.



The "STATES" of Freedom in the U.S.

...and No Surprise as to which States are at the BOTTOM!

New York: #50! Yess!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk

(I know: NYC , but that's like 95% of the state anyway.)

I'm in a constant state of anxiety, if that's worth anything.

No surprise that the most liberal states are the least free.


Mine is 19.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No surprise that the most liberal states are the least free.


Mine is 19.

Honest question: do you think liberals or conservatives do more harm to this country?

Originally posted by Surtur
Honest question: do you think liberals or conservatives do more harm to this country?

Conservatives, easily, no question and no doubt.

Edit - I should clarify. This is not something you can have an opinion on and be right. Your opinion can be wrong on this topic because there's too much evidence of harm done to the nation, or preventative progress done to the nation by conservatives over the centuries.

Only when you use extremely dishonest and specific definitions of harm can you make the case that conservatives did less harm.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Conservatives, easily, no question and no doubt.

Interesting, in what way?

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting, in what way?


I edited my post.


In almost every single way.


Think of any way. As long as it is honest, that's the way.

I knew you were liberal and would probably answer that way. I guess what I'm getting at is what this says about freedom. You think the side with the least free states is still overall less destructive.

EDIT: I'm not saying you are wrong.

Originally posted by Surtur
I knew you were liberal and would probably answer that way. I guess what I'm getting at is what this says about freedom. You think the side with the least free states is still overall less destructive.

Since my social beliefs are libertarian, naturally, my political beliefs would be opposed to most conservative beliefs and a significant portion of "American Liberals."

By the very definition of what it means to be a political conservative, they must oppose change. If they do not oppose change and progress, then they are not conservatives, by definition.

By the definition, they would have to do the greatest harm vis-a-vis the greatest amount of prevention of forward progress.

You just so happen to have chosen a question that will naturally, by the definition of the word, be answered in a way that you feel is negative towards conservatives.



It's one of those questions you shouldn't ask someone like me, man.

Originally posted by Surtur
Honest question: do you think liberals or conservatives do more harm to this country?

Liberal policies didn't help asian college applicants much.

The worst thing a conservative will do, is cut spending on safety net programs or avocate for corporate welfare.

Liberals, they come up with shit like "lifestyle payments" in divorce, laws that make it a crime to go after a guy stealing your car, and like stupid stuff that affects your joe average more..

So I guess conservatives are worse for the dirt poor, and liberals are worse for everyone else. Both are pretty equally good for the rich... "Too Big to Fail" happened under Obama, after all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since my social beliefs are libertarian, naturally, my political beliefs would be opposed to most conservative beliefs and a significant portion of "American Liberals."

By the very definition of what it means to be a political conservative, they must oppose change. If they do not oppose change and progress, then they are not conservatives, by definition.

By the definition, they would have to do the greatest harm vis-a-vis the greatest amount of prevention of forward progress.

You just so happen to have chosen a question that will naturally, by the definition of the word, be answered in a way that you feel is negative towards conservatives.



It's one of those questions you shouldn't ask someone like me, man.

It doesn't bother me because I feel true liberalism is indeed great. Conservatives can be shitbags and they have mostly adopted some of their positions(loving free speech) merely because the "liberals" we currently have shifted their own positions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since my social beliefs are libertarian, naturally, my political beliefs would be opposed to most conservative beliefs and a significant portion of "American Liberals."

By the very definition of what it means to be a political conservative, they must oppose change. If they do not oppose change and progress, then they are not conservatives, by definition.

By the definition, they would have to do the greatest harm vis-a-vis the greatest amount of prevention of forward progress.

You just so happen to have chosen a question that will naturally, by the definition of the word, be answered in a way that you feel is negative towards conservatives.



It's one of those questions you shouldn't ask someone like me, man.


One who opposes change can't really cause harm, though. Only by taking action, or trying to "improve" something, can you risk making it worse.

California 48 overall.

23 when it comes to personal.

1 for marriage

5 for victimless

5 for health insurance

5 for alcohol

49 in guns

1 in Cannabis

50 in occupational.

Originally posted by cdtm
One who opposes change can't really cause harm, though. Only by taking action, or trying to "improve" something, can you risk making it worse.

If you view it a bit more fact based instead of with a subjective definition, then it would be the one who harmed forward progress away from harmful practices in addition to implementing policies that harmed. It's not one or the other: it must be both. We are using the political science word "conservative" and by excluding the primary purpose of what defines a conservative, you're missing the entire point. Divorce yourself from the conservative identify so it does not appear you must defend it. This is a topic that there's no wiggle room to debate.

Here, I'll use an analogy to make it easier to understand:

Premise: Current state is -10,000 and any state below 0 is harmful.
Group A: Prevented progress by 1,0000 units (retain -1000) and made progress by 10 units (+10)
Group B: Prevented progress by 10 units and made progress by 1,000 units (+1,000)


Result: Group A has conserved harm by -1,000 units. They are a net-negative on the harm being caused from any point beyond when the two measures were made.
Conclusion: Group A is more harmful than Group B.



You can disagree with the point I made. But it is not my point: it is facts. If you want to disagree more, then address these questions:

You're okay with things like Jim Crow Laws, Slavery, no rights voting rights for women? If you are, then you will not see conservatism as being harmful. You're wrong, of course. Because people were harmed by those.



Sorry, my arguments seem quite assholish but they are not intended to be. There's just not much middle ground so if I make the arguments, it will come off as me doing classic dadudemon stuff. But I don't intend to be. It's just that this topic doesn't leave much room for debate. Disagreeing with the facts I've mentioned (whether or not you and I choose to acknowledge these facts does not matter - arguing against them will not change them) out will automatically make you wrong and the more I explain why you are wrong, the more combative or the more it seems I am trying to humiliate you it will appear.

Liberals +4
Conservatives -4

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you view it a bit more fact based instead of with a subjective definition, then it would be the one who harmed forward progress away from harmful practices in addition to implementing policies that harmed. It's not one or the other: it must be both. We are using the political science word "conservative" and by excluding the primary purpose of what defines a conservative, you're missing the entire point. Divorce yourself from the conservative identify so it does not appear you must defend it. This is a topic that there's no wiggle room to debate.

Here, I'll use an analogy to make it easier to understand:

Premise: Current state is -10,000 and any state below 0 is harmful.
Group A: Prevented progress by 1,0000 units (retain -1000) and made progress by 10 units (+10)
Group B: Prevented progress by 10 units and made progress by 1,000 units (+1,000)


Result: Group A has conserved harm by -1,000 units. They are a net-negative on the harm being caused from any point beyond when the two measures were made.
Conclusion: Group A is more harmful than Group B.



You can disagree with the point I made. But it is not my point: it is facts. If you want to disagree more, then address these questions:

You're okay with things like Jim Crow Laws, Slavery, no rights voting rights for women? If you are, then you will not see conservatism as being harmful. You're wrong, of course. Because people were harmed by those.



Sorry, my arguments seem quite assholish but they are not intended to be. There's just not much middle ground so if I make the arguments, it will come off as me doing classic dadudemon stuff. But I don't intend to be. It's just that this topic doesn't leave much room for debate. Disagreeing with the facts I've mentioned (whether or not you and I choose to acknowledge these facts does not matter - arguing against them will not change them) out will automatically make you wrong and the more I explain why you are wrong, the more combative or the more it seems I am trying to humiliate you it will appear.

It's fine, I didn't think anything of it.

The things you mentioned, yes. Basic human rights are good changes.

The problem comes from good intentions turned into something not so good, like this recent push to criminalize criticizing Israel, and linking it with anti-semitism (Meaning you can go to jail for criticizing a Israel in the countries that adopt such measures..). Or more on the home front, a push for equal representation resulting in groups that are over represented, being cut off (Right now, Asian groups)

If there was an even handed, well thought out, carefully vetted process to "help people", then fine. But there often isn't... It's all politics, driven by interest groups, who frame the issues as "If you're against helping people, you're a bigot/evil person"

That is recipie unintended consequences, and stifled debate. Which is why I personally err towards a "do nothing" policy over "something must be done".

That's why I consider Gerald Ford one of the best presidents ever. Because he didn't do anything.

Originally posted by Robtard
Liberals +4
Conservatives -4

If you use the Robbie Approved List of Leftist Hypocrisy and out right Lies.

Originally posted by cdtm
Liberal policies didn't help asian college applicants much.

The worst thing a conservative will do, is cut spending on safety net programs or avocate for corporate welfare.

Liberals, they come up with shit like "lifestyle payments" in divorce, laws that make it a crime to go after a guy stealing your car, and like stupid stuff that affects your joe average more..

So I guess conservatives are worse for the dirt poor, and liberals are worse for everyone else. Both are pretty equally good for the rich... "Too Big to Fail" happened under Obama, after all.

There are plenty of stupid laws that were pushed, such as divorce settlements which require one to pay the former spouse a ridiculous amount of money in alimony or child support to match the lifestyle they were living before the divorce.

However, I will argue that these types of laws affect far fewer people than cutting funding for social programs like social security, SNAP, Section 8, and utilities assistance, which help many more people who are in critical need of them.

I often find myself taking the utilitarian approach to politics.

What was their criteria for determining each state's level of "freedom"?

Are they judging by tax rates?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
If you use the Robbie Approved List of Leftist Hypocrisy and out right Lies.




Well this is liberals as in...true liberals. These people are not the ones crying over Alex Jones or cuz folk have mean speech that hurts fee fee's. These are the "I might not like what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it" types. These are not the people attacking "nazis" cuz feelings.

It is just a damn shame those kind of liberals are either quite rare these days or that they are quite content to sit back and let the "liberal" name be shit all over by people who freak out over "It's okay to be white" posters.

The fact conservatives are now championing free speech should disturb the true libs.

Of Course Free Speech must be fought. Free Speech can Hurt Duh FEE FEE'S!

To be fair, private colleges should also have the right to censor whatever they want.

The real travesty isn't freedom of speech, but that they do it for the waste of money public funding.

One area leftists fail at is crime prevention/punishment:



http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-hartford-repeat-car-theft-juvenile-arrest-20180601-story.html


This is fairly personal, because my car was broken into last night. It was stolen a few months back. My neighbor was up around 5 a.m., saw the kid looking through the car, got his gun and rushed out. The kid ran off into another car with his waiting friends.


If this was Massachusetts, my neighbor would have been charged with a crime, as it's forbidden by law to confront a trespasser/thief, and you're obligated to contact authorities. The funny thing is, a politicians/lawmaker who probably authorized the thing commented by saying "That's the law, but I sure as hell would run out with baseball bat if someone was stealing my car".


Complicating matters is juvinline offender law, that essentially keeps kids out of jail unless they murder someone. This results in "slap on the wrist" punishments, and repeat offenses, as is the case in the article I posted.


The fact is, many gang members are kids. Liberals have a platform of protecting the vulnerable, and kids are considered vulnerable... No parent wants a kid jail.


Yet your average gang member/prospect murderer will be well under drinking age. Liberals don't have an answer for this, and stick to "rehabilitation/more money for schools" bs, which doesn't help anything.

Originally posted by cdtm
One area leftists fail at is crime prevention/punishment:



http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-hartford-repeat-car-theft-juvenile-arrest-20180601-story.html


This is fairly personal, because my car was broken into last night. It was stolen a few months back. My neighbor was up around 5 a.m., saw the kid looking through the car, got his gun and rushed out. The kid ran off into another car with his waiting friends.


If this was Massachusetts, my neighbor would have been charged with a crime, as it's forbidden by law to confront a trespasser/thief, and you're obligated to contact authorities. The funny thing is, a politicians/lawmaker who probably authorized the thing commented by saying "That's the law, but I sure as hell would run out with baseball bat if someone was stealing my car".


Complicating matters is juvinline offender law, that essentially keeps kids out of jail unless they murder someone. This results in "slap on the wrist" punishments, and repeat offenses, as is the case in the article I posted.


The fact is, many gang members are kids. Liberals have a platform of protecting the vulnerable, and kids are considered vulnerable... No parent wants a kid jail.


Yet your average gang member/prospect murderer will be well under drinking age. Liberals don't have an answer for this, and stick to "rehabilitation/more money for schools" bs, which doesn't help anything.


This is the type of hypocrisy I'm talking about.

Lefties: "You don't care about babies as soon as they are born! All you care about is forcing young mothers to cary babies to full term! But, nope, no universal healthcare or college for the mother or baby!"

Also Lefites: "Let's not care at all about minorities or do anything about it. But we will very publicly donate money to clearly crooked charities. But let's not talk at all about legit minority struggles or acknowledge the problems with minorities. That would be racist!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the type of hypocrisy I'm talking about.

Lefties: "You don't care about babies as soon as they are born! All you care about is forcing young mothers to cary babies to full term! But, nope, no universal healthcare or college for the mother or baby!"

Also Lefites: "Let's not care at all about minorities or do anything about it. But we will very publicly donate money to clearly crooked charities. But let's not talk at all about legit minority struggles or acknowledge the problems with minorities. That would be racist!"

I'm not sure it's hypocrisy to put a man to death for, say, tieing down a few kids and torching a house, while feeling for the someone that had the misfortune of being in the womb of someone that doesn't want/can't afford their existence.

I can see both sides of the issue, in the sense I can understand kids are a huge expense for individuals, and a drain on society if the couple needs services...

I also find it disturbing that in many cases, if the carrier does choose to bring a child into the world, it's their boyfriend who insists she get the abortion. I honestly wonder if support for abortion is carried forward by concerned women, or by concerned men who simply don't want to be on the hook for the rest of their days..

Well Michigan being at 14 is kind of unexpected. Arizona at 9 is on the mark though.

Originally posted by cdtm
Liberal policies didn't help asian college applicants much.

The worst thing a conservative will do, is cut spending on safety net programs or avocate for corporate welfare.

Liberals, they come up with shit like "lifestyle payments" in divorce, laws that make it a crime to go after a guy stealing your car, and like stupid stuff that affects your joe average more..

So I guess conservatives are worse for the dirt poor, and liberals are worse for everyone else. Both are pretty equally good for the rich... "Too Big to Fail" happened under Obama, after all.

wew lad