Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

No you're not. If you're not anti-Trump, you're no moderate.

Liar. Nobody but you has said anything about getting the government involved. He didn't "suggest" it. He said it's a requirement for salvation. They've already been married for 2000 years. Yes, you've made it clear that you will never accept Jesus.

And that's a good thing? It seems to me that you guys have entirely too much ire-rankling. Have you ever studied any foreign languages? Specifically, languages where gender is significant? In French, for example, the word for "cat" is always feminine and the word for "dog" is always masculine. The gender has nothing to do with the actual sex of the beast.So Ben Shapiro doesn't know what he's talking about. So if your father died without paying off the mortgage on the house, the bank should just write it off? That's not much of a capitalist attitude. Even I would say that if the children get the benefits of their fathers' deeds, they should pay the price.

Why not? You seem awfully eager to start a war.

What's the difference?If the children inherited an unfair advantage, why shouldn't they pay for it? You're using Trump mathematics: "I got ahead somehow, so stop counting and let me keep my lead."

That's not the issue at all.The issue is whether or not society "should" pay. Even when nobody can force society to pay, "should" society do the right thing? See above. If not, it's because society wants to weasel out of its debts.The question is: Why do you advocate weaseling? Why are you so dead-set against doing the right thing? Jesus told you to give up your stack. I'm sure those listening appreciate you warning them against Jesus. I don't know why you keep bringing up the government. Clearly not. You have repeatedly refused to give them up for Him.

Of course. Who suggested otherwise?But you seem to suggest that the very idea is outrageous and that you will fight it tooth and nail. We're not talking about "special interest groups". We're talking about one group of people that was grotesquely mistreated by another group and you're violently opposed to the idea that that mistreatment should be redressed in some way. It isn't out of our way at all. The Caucasian was responsible for the situation and the descendents of the Caucasian have reaped the benefits of the situation. It seems perfectly appropriate for the Caucasian to pay. But the fire is you. If you can't be part of the solution, at least stop being part of the problem. There's your Trump-thinking again: "I'm ahead, so stop counting."No. The goal should be to do what's right, even if it means paying past debts. Of course we have (society has) that exact right. Don't try to pull that crap with me. YOU are the one who has an imaginary Jesus who tells you it's okay to be a selfish right-wing prick. You should. You're morality as it stands is pretty sickly. Remember the saying about trees producing fruit.

They already do. It's April 15th in the US, isn't it? How can you know it's impossible if you reject it out of hand with no discussion?

There are some unfortunate "rights" in your Constitution. The "right" to own slaves used to be there and the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs is still there. How can you call yourself a "moderate" when you always side with the right-wing nuts?

And AGAIN, you don't reply to waht you quoted.Try again. I said, "How can you call yourself a "moderate" when you always side with the right-wing nuts?"

You wouldn't know a "leftist narrative" if it sat down beside you in church. You're getting everything you think you know about the "left" from right-wing nuts like Jordan Peterson.

He contradicts himself between 01 and 05. How is that rational?Nobody is talking about any "collective crime". Recognizing that white privilege exists is just that - recognizing a fact. If you recognize that the black guy has had a tougher time of it than you and if you maybe cut him a break once in a while, that's nice too.And recognizing racism is not racism.In a 14-line transcript of a 28-second clip you've shown quite well what an idiot Peterson is.And it isn't even because he's a "conservative nut". He's a wannabe "conservative thinker".

As I have said before, conservatism isn't necessarily evil. It depends on what you want to conserve.If you want to conserve "family values", that's a good thing - as long as you don't consider persecuting homosexuals a family value. If you want to conserve the "good old days" of slavery - or even the good old days when black people "knew their place" - that's a bad thing. I have also said before, conservatives tend to think of the nation as a business - the less-productive members have to fall by the wayside; liberals tend to think of the nation as a family - you feed your children whether you can afford it or not.

There were never any "low prices" that didn't come with low wages. When I finished high school, the minimum wage was about $1.75 an hour. So what if prices were "lower"? You couldn't buy more. There have always been periods of inflation. There's nothing there to conserve. Good. How is that a "thus"? What are you going to do with your military? Got out and grab more lebensraum? How will throwing away money on military adventures like Afghanistan reduce inflation? As somebody else has been trying to tell you, it is not a zero-sum game. When the bottom of the totem-pole benefits, you will benefit too. No. You definitely have not. Yes. So why do rich people tend to be conservative? Again, how? How is an expensive military going to preserve your lifestyle? Plunder and pillage? You have it backwards. You should be asking yourself why the rest of the world has to perpetually be your hewers of wood and drawers of water. Please do. All you've done so far is regurgitate the same old same old.

No, no, no, no, no. We have a member of the family who is grabbing more than his share of privileges. I am NOT going to help him do that. I want him to lose his privileges for the benefit of the underprivileged. But you've never done that with them before. You've used them to throw your weight around, and often made the situation worse instead of better. Well, of course not. Your military is one of the biggest threats to your quality of life. I'm definitely not "upper-middle-class". I would call YOU lower middle class and I'm below you on the totem pole. Of course. Why should I favor somebody who is less qualified just because we accidentally happened to be born close to each other? If the reasons are obvious, why are you denying that the rich tend to be conservative? I really wish you would read what I post instead of making it up in your head. I have said more than once that I am NOT in favor of taxing the rich. I'm in favor of the poor paying for the services they use and to hell with the rich. And we can accomplish that, for a start, by raising the minimum wage so the working poor can afford to pay taxes. That doesn't deprive you of your precious ivory backscratcher. I asked you to think. Why didn't you?It's the cost of your military that endangers your entitlements. The only "bullies" who threaten your entitlements are the poor who are trying to rise to your level. Are you going to sic the military on them? That's the same argument that was used to keep the negroes picking cotton. And it was out of date then.But again, all you're doing is trotting out your selfish complaints. You're not discussing Liberals or Conservatives at all.