Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Man v. man

    Man v. man

    Spotted by reader Bob from Windsor, CO, while visiting in Irvine, CA.

    But what does it mean?  The usual configuration has lower case “man” twice, and is taken to mean that there is no real difference between the political parties. 

    But here it’s Man v. man? 

    Deep meaning, or a case for The Most Expensive Proofreader in America?

    (I like this explanation of the difference between Republicans and Democrats somewhat better.)

    ——————————————–
    Related Posts:
    Bumper Stickers – The Series

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    That's an old Soviet-union saying:
    Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. In Communism, its exactly the opposite.

    Tip O'Neill summed it up best:

    "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

    With the high rate of single mothers who are depending on the [taxpaying] village to raise their children, with abortions decreasing the black population, with more and more people relying on the government largess and not their own ambition and personal responsibility, how's that working out for you, Democrats?

    If "Man" represents the proper man, the individual, and "man" represents the generic man, then in all iterations this statement is false. In all cases, it is Man who exploits another Man. Obfuscating the role of Man in government (or other bodies of authority) does not reduce the culpability of individual civil servants, and should not provide a pass to individuals who benefit from redistributive change (i.e., recycled wealth).

    The principal difference between Republicans, who are ostensibly the representatives of Conservatives, and Democrats, who are the representatives of a diverse range of left-wing ideologues, can be measured in the distinction between voluntary and involuntary exploitation.

    While corruption is the rule of left-wing ideologies, it remains the exception for others, and, as such, it is imperative that competing interests curtail progressive corruption.

    Since everyone is vulnerable to delusions of grandeur, it is necessary to consider that everyone must be held accountable for their actions, including individuals who first subscribe to a preferred ideology.

    In order mitigate progressive corruption, we must resort sparingly to involuntary exploitation in order to fund individual or group welfare.

    In the establishment and development of society, it is necessary to compromise individual dignity. Let's hope we avoid the pitfalls of regressive systems, and choose a proper balance. One that will optimally promote the general welfare while preserving individual dignity.

    my interpretation is that it means that it doesn't matter who is in charge, both parties are corrupt.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend