We are trying to move America forward,

Threedee said:
If you will recall, Clinton took illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese.

The Founders created a government in which the people could not vote for the president (in some cases, not even for the Electors) or the senate. They did everything they could to avoid democracy, as they viewed it as mob rule. They simply did not trust the ignorant masses.
Click to expand...
Like all great lies that only has an element of truth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you admit this has shit to do with the topic at hand.


If they really had such abhorrence for people, they would have not wanted a free society in the first place.

do you think we should eliminate all elections then, just to follow their line of thinking? Or are you just happy having corporations foul up the discourse?
Click to expand...

I was talking to Crash when I brought up Clinton. Obviously you are too stupid for me to have been talking to you.

A free society is one in which people are able to exercize their natural rights. This means, a republic, governed by the rule of law. Elections, at least at the local level, are necessary to a free society, but there is a difference between elections and democracy. The US House was designed to represent the people. The US Senate and Presidency were not.
 
Threedee said:
I was talking to Crash when I brought up Clinton. Obviously you are too stupid for me to have been talking to you.

A free society is one in which people are able to exercize their natural rights. This means, a republic, governed by the rule of law. Elections, at least at the local level, are necessary to a free society, but there is a difference between elections and democracy. The US House was designed to represent the people. The US Senate and Presidency were not.
Click to expand...

the only rights you have are the ones you can get for yourself.

Why are local elections necessary but voting for the president is bad?
 
While 3d is such a dim bulb, he still acts like he knows stuff. He cant even explain his own beliefs. That's the sign of being brainwashed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the only rights you have are the ones you can get for yourself.

Why are local elections necessary but voting for the president is bad?
Click to expand...

Might makes right, eh? Well, you are the inept bunglar who uses affirmative action and quotas as bogeymen to distract from the fact that he can't succeed in life. I suppose you don't have any rights.

The Founders believed that liberty and rights were constantly under threat of being destroyed, and thus they advocated vigilence. Back then, this attitude was called Real Whig Ideology. Because they had been born with English Constitutional Rights, they viewed American Colonial society to be privileged. In other words, just because rights don't appear universally, relativists and evil men cannot use that as an excuse to say they are farsical, and demand that only the strong may contend.

People have a vested interest in local matters, and usually a modicum of understanding. Not so for national elections such as president.
 
Threedee said:
I was talking to Crash when I brought up Clinton. Obviously you are too stupid for me to have been talking to you.

A free society is one in which people are able to exercize their natural rights. This means, a republic, governed by the rule of law. Elections, at least at the local level, are necessary to a free society, but there is a difference between elections and democracy. The US House was designed to represent the people. The US Senate and Presidency were not.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I am a Clinton fan? I voted for him once. As soon as I learned he was continuing Reagan/BushI's nafta/gatt I realized he was a traitor too.

There can be no free society when it's ruled by corporate powers. Economic slavery will always result. Study history.
 
Crashk said:
What makes you think I am a Clinton fan? I voted for him once. As soon as I learned he was continuing Reagan/BushI's nafta/gatt I realized he was a traitor too.

There can be no free society when it's ruled by corporate powers. Economic slavery will always result. Study history.
Click to expand...

You singled out Republicans. I actually think, character aside, that Clinton did a fine job as president.

LOLZ @ economic slavery, btw
 
Threedee said:
Might makes right, eh? Well, you are the inept bunglar who uses affirmative action and quotas as bogeymen to distract from the fact that he can't succeed in life. I suppose you don't have any rights.
Click to expand...
We had to fight for our freedom right?
The Founders believed that liberty and rights were constantly under threat of being destroyed, and thus they advocated vigilence. Back then, this attitude was called Real Whig Ideology. Because they had been born with English Constitutional Rights, they viewed American Colonial society to be privileged. In other words, just because rights don't appear universally, relativists and evil men cannot use that as an excuse to say they are farsical, and demand that only the strong may contend.

People have a vested interest in local matters, and usually a modicum of understanding. Not so for national elections such as president.
Click to expand...

I advocate vigilance, but freedom and rights are just empty words when you're in economic slavery.
 
AssHatZombie said:
We had to fight for our freedom right?


I advocate vigilance, but freedom and rights are just empty words when you're in economic slavery.
Click to expand...

We had to fight for our independence. If you had an ounce of character, you would not regard freedom and rights as "just words," and then turn around with fictitious words such as "economic slavery."
 
Threedee said:
We had to fight for our independence. If you had an ounce of character, you would not regard freedom and rights as "just words," and then turn around with fictitious words such as "economic slavery."
Click to expand...

We fought for our independence against the British East India Co. which had monopolies on trade and the founding fathers did not want to remain economic slaves.

It says We The People, not we the corporation for a reason. What we're talking about, I think, is unlimited foreign money secretly influencing our elections. The problem is our Supreme Court, the Republicon party and the DLC are bought and sold by transnational corporations who's only concern is profits and could give a shit about this country. Their objective is to drive down YOUR standard of living and you blindly support this.
 
Threedee said:
We had to fight for our independence. If you had an ounce of character, you would not regard freedom and rights as "just words," and then turn around with fictitious words such as "economic slavery."
Click to expand...

They are obviously just words when the people who profess to believe them, like you, are actually pro-enslavement.
 
Crashk said:
We fought for our independence against the British East India Co. which had monopolies on trade and the founding fathers did not want to remain economic slaves.

It says We The People, not we the corporation for a reason. What we're talking about, I think, is unlimited foreign money secretly influencing our elections. The problem is our Supreme Court, the Republicon party and the DLC are bought and sold by transnational corporations who's only concern is profits and could give a shit about this country. Their objective is to drive down YOUR standard of living and you blindly support this.
Click to expand...

We faught against the dictates of Parliament. Regarding the EIC, Americans opposed what was essentially a bailout, because EIC tea was being exempted from the Tea Tax, so that it would be cheaper, allowing it and its investors (such as in Parliament) to recover. Americans didn't like the idea of an uncompetitive field in this or any other market. It had nothing to do with being oppressed or controlled by the EIC.
 
Threedee said:
We faught against the dictates of Parliament. Regarding the EIC, Americans opposed what was essentially a bailout, because EIC tea was being exempted from the Tea Tax, so that it would be cheaper, allowing it and its investors (such as in Parliament) to recover. Americans didn't like the idea of an uncompetitive field in this or any other market. It had nothing to do with being oppressed or controlled by the EIC.
Click to expand...

BUt it is about being economically dominated by the EIC. Economic domination leads to oppression and control. You just made his case, you fool.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They are obviously just words when the people who profess to believe them, like you, are actually pro-enslavement.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in other people's liberty or property rights. This is all just words to YOU. You don't believe that a businessman or an investor should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their work and ingenuity. Instead, you claim that their rights should be curteiled, as the fruits of their efforts lead to "economic slavery" for other people.
 
Threedee said:
You don't believe in other people's liberty or property rights. This is all just words to YOU. You don't believe that a businessman or an investor should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their work and ingenuity. Instead, you claim that their rights should be curteiled, as the fruits of their efforts lead to "economic slavery" for other people.
Click to expand...

I believe in everyone's rights. Including a citzens right to an enforced border.

You have become fascist and now cannot even recognize actual freedom.

The freedom to destroy the border and institute destructive trade policy is not in the bill of rights, toadstool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top