houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

And no doubt many of these so called "immigrants" or "Americans" are here illegally. Even if we assume that were not the case (and I cannot assume that), how can anyone argue that people are not coming here for welfare when Medicaid is exactly that, and the state-run media (fuck you NPR that is quite true) is lamenting that people who do not know English well enough would be unable to figure out how to deal without. Last I checked, if you are born here, you should have no problem with English.

I recall hearing a segment on NPR about how Medicaid access was going to be rolled back based on Covid rules no longer being in place. One of the concerns was for people who did not speak English very well not understanding things.

If you have a brain in your skull, you should see something very wrong with this picture. That being what are presumably first generation immigrants doing coming here only to be using welfare? Don't tell me we should be importing people who are a drain on the system.

Posting this again, as I am making it a tradition to post it on Easter.

Excuse me. What? Why is there a church in the same building as a synagogue?

Almost 10 years old, but it still applies. This anon is correct about the Muslims being more reasonable than the western progressive leftists. They are certainly the better option, so if I have to choose between the two, I will side with the Muslims.

Not saying I would be happy about the end result, but I will take their harsh but consistent rules over the incoherent standards of the left.

I will end with a statement inverting Vaush's scenario.

If you were given all the provisions you would need to live, but you were forced to live in a 10x10 room and never leave it, would you have freedom?

The answer is no, because I just described a prison.

Another thing, when we no longer can even agree on what "freedom" really means, we see all sorts of abuses of the term.

"Those immigrants coming here are American as you are because they came here for freedom!" In many cases, they are here for economic reasons and really could not care all that much about freedom. Yes, they have a better standard of living and have the means to be more successful, but again, that is not the same thing as freedom.

One thing to note is that most people could not define themselves as being 100% about freedom. That indeed would be lawlessness. Most people want at least SOME laws in place. How many you want shows how much you do or do not prioritize freedom.

The same people who claim that they want homosexual marriage legalized because they are about freedom would scorn at the idea that someone could refuse to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. It shows that they are not as big on freedom as they claim.

You are also not guaranteed to be happy if you have full freedom. I recall a clip where Vaush and Charlie Kirk were on someone else's show (not remembering at the moment), and Vaush asked Kirk if someone would have freedom in a lawless desert with no food and water. Kirk incorrectly answers no, which not so coincidentally was what Vaush thought too.

Yes, you do have total freedom in this scenario. Because freedom is not about being happy or having provisions.

When it comes to prosperity, we see far too much conflation. Yes, you need freedom to be able to make money. But freedom itself does not guarantee success, it only provides a chance of that success. Yes, many people will credit that they are "more free" because they are able to earn more than in many other countries. But the high earnings themselves are also not equivalent to freedom itself. To equivocate the two means that those who are not successful will resent any talk about freedom.

There are many ways the word "freedom" is misused. Often, it will be considered synonymous with happiness, prosperity, success, and other positive outcomes. When these terms are conflated with freedom, we only invite criticisms of all the wrong kinds as well as word games to twist what it means to want freedom.

Example: "Why do you say you are 'for freedom' if you are opposed to free healthcare?"

Free healthcare, of course, is not "free," but requires mechanisms that are anti-freedom.