0
   

The Central Issue of American Politics?

 
 
Cato cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 05:30 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Cato:
The central issue since the Magna Carta has been freedom or liberty from government. In America, from Jefferson forward, the Republicans have been for freedom while others: currently Democrats, have opposed.

Republicans like freedom because they know it makes each individual responsible and productive, while Democrats or liberals are opposed because they imagine powerful central government can do magical things to help people!

Fatal: Your understanding of politics is cartoon-ish at best.

Ted: please don't be afraid to say exactly why this is mistaken if you can. Thanks
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 05:58 pm
@Cato cv,
Cato;70633 wrote:
Cato:
The central issue since the Magna Carta has been freedom or liberty from government. In America, from Jefferson forward, the Republicans have been for freedom while others: currently Democrats, have opposed.

Republicans like freedom because they know it makes each individual responsible and productive, while Democrats or liberals are opposed because they imagine powerful central government can do magical things to help people!

Fatal: Your understanding of politics is cartoon-ish at best.

Ted: please don't be afraid to say exactly why this is mistaken if you can. Thanks


Because you are making broad sweeping generalizations.
Cato cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:02 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Because you are making broad sweeping generalizations.

Ted:educated people can sometimes make accurate generalizations. This does not mean they are inaccurate. If you find it inaccurate please say exactly why if you can.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:25 pm
@Cato cv,
Cato;70635 wrote:
Because you are making broad sweeping generalizations.

Ted:educated people can sometimes make accurate generalizations. This does not mean they are inaccurate. If you find it inaccurate please say exactly why if you can.


Most often people make sweeping generalizations based on some bias, whether it be political bias, philosophical bias, national bias, racial bias or religious bias. Such sweeping generalizations are almost never accurate. I will disregard them as mere partisan drivel.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 12:05 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;70638 wrote:
Most often people make sweeping generalizations based on some bias, whether it be political bias, philosophical bias, national bias, racial bias or religious bias. Such sweeping generalizations are almost never accurate. I will disregard them as mere partisan drivel.


I feel bad for you freedoms. You can't put him on Ignore like me. You have to "moderate" him.

Once again my condolences ...
0 Replies
 
Seer Dan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 11:42 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
I have read this thread and it is clear that none of you have a clue as to the Truth here.

There is no central issue in american politics because they are all lie-based and utterly illegitimate issues. The only current issue is one of Truth, acknowledging that every single aspect of society is lie-based, genocidally malevolent and deranged.


There is no issue or problem with either the size or power of governments. That is a moot point. The issue is the total lack of Truth-based legitimacy in all the dogmas, dictates, institutions, idealologies and practices of all human societies.

"Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action[1][2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state." - Wiki.

What a joke. What you have to realize is that virtually no human being knows anything about what any legitimate form of liberty would even entail. The enemy of Truth and the victimizer of the individual is culture and society, not the "government" in principal. This is because in theory you could have a Truth-based government, and this would need to be very large and structured.

All large political movements, including libertarian, are simply illegitimate and must be rejected by the aspiring Superior. They do not represent Truth.

What you have to realize is that even if the government and the police were weak and did not do much governing, that society ITSELF already brutally oppresses you and controls nearly every aspect of your lives and your minds. Small governments mean nothing.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 06:46 pm
@Seer Dan,
Seer Dan;71508 wrote:
I have read this thread and it is clear that none of you have a clue as to the Truth here.

There is no central issue in american politics because they are all lie-based and utterly illegitimate issues. The only current issue is one of Truth, acknowledging that every single aspect of society is lie-based, genocidally malevolent and deranged.


There is no issue or problem with either the size or power of governments. That is a moot point. The issue is the total lack of Truth-based legitimacy in all the dogmas, dictates, institutions, idealologies and practices of all human societies.

"Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action[1][2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state." - Wiki.

What a joke. What you have to realize is that virtually no human being knows anything about what any legitimate form of liberty would even entail. The enemy of Truth and the victimizer of the individual is culture and society, not the "government" in principal. This is because in theory you could have a Truth-based government, and this would need to be very large and structured.

All large political movements, including libertarian, are simply illegitimate and must be rejected by the aspiring Superior. They do not represent Truth.

What you have to realize is that even if the government and the police were weak and did not do much governing, that society ITSELF already brutally oppresses you and controls nearly every aspect of your lives and your minds. Small governments mean nothing.


Are you one of seer travis' friends?
0 Replies
 
theophilus cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:35 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70542 wrote:
also i believe the constitution should have never allowed for amendments beyond the bill of rights. in fact it should have mandated death penalty for anybody trying to amend it. the 11th amendment should have been the one banning all further amendments.
If you are familiar with the Bible you are aware that the Persian empire had a similar policy. No decree issued by the emperor could be changed. This sometimes created serious problems.

The book of Esther tells how the ruler was persuaded to give an order that all Jews be killed, and then he discovered that Esther, his queen, was a Jew.

In chapter 6 of Daniel Darius was tricked into signing a decree forbidding anyone to pray to anyone but him for thirty days and discovered too late that this was a plot by Daniel's enemies to get him killed.

If we couldn't amend the constitution those who wanted change might feel they have to resort to trying to overthrow the government to accomplish their goals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 02:12:50