100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Rand Paul condones racism? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
" ... I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive ... " If they've taken the intiative to EARN the money, WHY should ANYONE else have a say in what they do (or don't do) with it? It's THEIR MONEY. To have others dictate what I do with MY money is Communism. Who tells you how to spend YOUR money or what to spend it ON? More to the point, how often do you (or have you?) listen ... ? My guess is 'never'. condescending rhetoric, superior attitudes, personal attacks and outrageous ASSumptions aside,,,,I will re iterate the point of the post in response to this quote "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." I made a rather relevant comparison to how only a small percent own the wealth(in comparison to a small percent ruling). The argument that people can EARN wealth is the equivalent to the argument that people are VOTED into power,,,and therefore 'deserve' it. However, the tone of the original quote seemed to be a comparison about how such power gets into the hands of such an elect few,,,and I agreed with the comparison of how so much WEALTH does too. in response to someone posting about the 'elite' ruling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Fri 05/21/10 11:06 AM
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. I agree, like when the top 10percent have 70percent of the wealth,,,,,thats a pretty powerful position of power,,, Self determination allows for your children to become one of those people. Make their own money and choices. Collectivism expects them to languish in poverty like the rest.. yes, self determination,,,the un refuted way to become one of the elite,,,,,,,, not really in ADDITION to self determination,,things like resources, networks, and education, also contribute to where the wealth goes I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive with VERY RARE exceptions,, a child being born into poverty today,, is NOT going to be at the top ten percent in wealth tomorrow Is 10% of 300 million.. 30 million? That is a larger amount of population than entire countries have. I would agree with your assumption if the number was 3,000 out of 300 million. The elite Jefferson is talking about is not people that make 6 figure salaries. He is talking about an oppressive government dictating what individuals can and cannot do. I know you are all for wealth redistribution so you don't have to continue down that path of explanation. In the society I advocate, anyone has the chance to succeed. Yours is based on "if I can't succeed neither should you".. That is the battle going on today, isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. Wonder what Dr. Paul would have to say 'bout dat'? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 05/21/10 11:49 AM
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. Actually you don't get the responsibility of freedom. Nor does Rand Paul. And he does condone racism, intolerance, discrimination, etc, if he believes there should be no punishment for those who cannot seem to apply equality to their business. Condoning racism and discrimination is not a good quality for a leader. So I will be watching to see if he attempt to step up and I will be working to make sure he never governs me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Fri 05/21/10 11:48 AM
|
|
" ... I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive ... " If they've taken the intiative to EARN the money, WHY should ANYONE else have a say in what they do (or don't do) with it? It's THEIR MONEY. To have others dictate what I do with MY money is Communism. Who tells you how to spend YOUR money or what to spend it ON? More to the point, how often do you (or have you?) listen ... ? My guess is 'never'. condescending rhetoric, superior attitudes, personal attacks and outrageous ASSumptions aside,,,,I will re iterate the point of the post in response to this quote "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." I made a rather relevant comparison to how only a small percent own the wealth(in comparison to a small percent ruling). The argument that people can EARN wealth is the equivalent to the argument that people are VOTED into power,,,and therefore 'deserve' it. However, the tone of the original quote seemed to be a comparison about how such power gets into the hands of such an elect few,,,and I agreed with the comparison of how so much WEALTH does too. in response to someone posting about the 'elite' ruling Envy is SO unbecoming ... but it works for the political class who use it and those for whom it has its appeal ... I ask the Court to enter this into the record as 'Exhibit A' ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 05/21/10 12:08 PM
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. I agree, like when the top 10percent have 70percent of the wealth,,,,,thats a pretty powerful position of power,,, Self determination allows for your children to become one of those people. Make their own money and choices. Collectivism expects them to languish in poverty like the rest.. yes, self determination,,,the un refuted way to become one of the elite,,,,,,,, not really in ADDITION to self determination,,things like resources, networks, and education, also contribute to where the wealth goes I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive with VERY RARE exceptions,, a child being born into poverty today,, is NOT going to be at the top ten percent in wealth tomorrow Is 10% of 300 million.. 30 million? That is a larger amount of population than entire countries have. I would agree with your assumption if the number was 3,000 out of 300 million. The elite Jefferson is talking about is not people that make 6 figure salaries. He is talking about an oppressive government dictating what individuals can and cannot do. I know you are all for wealth redistribution so you don't have to continue down that path of explanation. In the society I advocate, anyone has the chance to succeed. Yours is based on "if I can't succeed neither should you".. That is the battle going on today, isn't it? and likewise,, is your society based on 'if I cant have power, neither should you?' actually, 10% is 10% rather it is of 300 or 3000. You can understand why someone with 1000 dollars in their pocket can donate 10 dollars and its not quite as big a sacrifice for them as someone who has 100 dollars in their pocket. For me, percentages, rather than numbers , allow things to be put into perspective And as far as an oppressive government,, will you deny that those who have the WEALTH in the country have the power? and so how is comparing the most wealthy with the powerfully elite such a stretch? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. Actually you don't get the responsibility of freedom. Nor does Rand Paul. And he does condone racism, intolerance, discrimination, etc, if he believes there should be no punishment for those who cannot seem to apply equality to their business. Condoning racism and discrimination is not a good quality for a leader. So I will be watching to see if he attempt to step up and I will be working to make sure he never governs me. Maybe if you are so bent on "punishing" people for how they feel and how they conduct their private lives and business you should be a district attorney, or better yet get a pair of leather boots and a whip and start punishing everyone who does not see things the way you do. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. Actually you don't get the responsibility of freedom. Nor does Rand Paul. And he does condone racism, intolerance, discrimination, etc, if he believes there should be no punishment for those who cannot seem to apply equality to their business. Condoning racism and discrimination is not a good quality for a leader. So I will be watching to see if he attempt to step up and I will be working to make sure he never governs me. For your slanderous quote, and your continued slander, you may be enjoying his company. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul stands for the individuals right to self determination and that is what the left wingers don't like. Being ruled by a small group of elite is not liberty, does not provide any freedom, and does not end in peaceful tranquility. This quote says it all... "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson Collectivism is a cancer. 5% ruling 95%.. Individual rights only go so far also. You cannot have the individual right to commit crimes at least not without punishment even on your personal time. Discrimination is a crime and should be punished. Rand Paul is condoning discrimination. It is a crime. It is wrong. Making him wrong. Dragoness you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say that any government at all is not freedom. Then you turn around and start spouting about who should be punished for whatever. "Discrimination" is not a crime. You don't even know what discrimination is. Rand Paul is not condoning discrimination. If you think that then you are just wrong plain and simple. Anytime anyone hires anyone they "discriminate" between one person over another. They make a choice. Making a choice requires discrimination. I would 'discriminate' against an X-convict and I would choose a college graduate. If anyone were to tell me that I had to hire an X-convict or a percentage of them, I would tell them to go jump in a lake. The point is, if we exercise our freedom, we will hire the best person for the job and probably a person we think we could get along with. Maybe you have a personal problem. Maybe you have been discriminated against for some reason. But the bottom line is that freedom will win out over any man-made laws that attempt to control people. I am for freedom and for people like Rand Paul. I am not a racist and neither is he. Get over it. You are wrong and not making your point well at all. Reread the article. First off government is the antithesis of freedom no matter how you put it. Did I say government is unnecessary? no. Second of all discrimination is a crime and it is a very legitimate crime. None of the faux freedoms fought about can be possible for all humans unless all humans start with the same playing field. Rand Paul has stated that he is a racist who believes in discrimination from businesses. So you cannot deny his own words. Rand Paul did not state that he is a racist. That my dear, is slander. That my dear, is your twisted interpretation. "Under your philosophy it would be OK for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth's?" Paul was asked. He replied that he would have boycotted the store and denounced it, but added, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom." I did read the article again. Clearly, Rand Paul stands for freedom and is against the government telling private business what they must do. Clearly, in reading that article again, Rand Paul stands his ground for freedom irregardless of people who would twist and interpret his words into racism. You clearly just don't get it when it comes to what it means to be free. Actually you don't get the responsibility of freedom. Nor does Rand Paul. And he does condone racism, intolerance, discrimination, etc, if he believes there should be no punishment for those who cannot seem to apply equality to their business. Condoning racism and discrimination is not a good quality for a leader. So I will be watching to see if he attempt to step up and I will be working to make sure he never governs me. Maybe if you are so bent on "punishing" people for how they feel and how they conduct their private lives and business you should be a district attorney, or better yet get a pair of leather boots and a whip and start punishing everyone who does not see things the way you do.
I doubt there is any pair of leather boots that could stand up to the pressure. 
I think someone having you standing over them with a black leather halter, micro mini, and thigh high boots swingin' a whip, would believe they'd died an' gone ta' heaven!  
Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ... I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive ... " If they've taken the intiative to EARN the money, WHY should ANYONE else have a say in what they do (or don't do) with it? It's THEIR MONEY. To have others dictate what I do with MY money is Communism. Who tells you how to spend YOUR money or what to spend it ON? More to the point, how often do you (or have you?) listen ... ? My guess is 'never'. condescending rhetoric, superior attitudes, personal attacks and outrageous ASSumptions aside,,,,I will re iterate the point of the post in response to this quote "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." I made a rather relevant comparison to how only a small percent own the wealth(in comparison to a small percent ruling). The argument that people can EARN wealth is the equivalent to the argument that people are VOTED into power,,,and therefore 'deserve' it. However, the tone of the original quote seemed to be a comparison about how such power gets into the hands of such an elect few,,,and I agreed with the comparison of how so much WEALTH does too. in response to someone posting about the 'elite' ruling Envy is SO unbecoming ... but it works for the political class who use it and those for whom it has its appeal ... I ask the Court to enter this into the record as 'Exhibit A' ... envious of what? lol an analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based also, the method I was using in RESPONSE to the idea that the elite having power is a problem quite different from the Ad hominem methods used by others,,,,Exhibit A indeed,,,,,LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 05/21/10 02:10 PM
|
|
So then, willing2, are you willing to be punished?
Have you been a bad boy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ... I am not talking about being successful,, or making alot of money at a career, I am talking about having WEALTH to think that those who hold it dont distribute and share it amongst a very small few , is kind of naive ... " If they've taken the intiative to EARN the money, WHY should ANYONE else have a say in what they do (or don't do) with it? It's THEIR MONEY. To have others dictate what I do with MY money is Communism. Who tells you how to spend YOUR money or what to spend it ON? More to the point, how often do you (or have you?) listen ... ? My guess is 'never'. condescending rhetoric, superior attitudes, personal attacks and outrageous ASSumptions aside,,,,I will re iterate the point of the post in response to this quote "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." I made a rather relevant comparison to how only a small percent own the wealth(in comparison to a small percent ruling). The argument that people can EARN wealth is the equivalent to the argument that people are VOTED into power,,,and therefore 'deserve' it. However, the tone of the original quote seemed to be a comparison about how such power gets into the hands of such an elect few,,,and I agreed with the comparison of how so much WEALTH does too. in response to someone posting about the 'elite' ruling Envy is SO unbecoming ... but it works for the political class who use it and those for whom it has its appeal ... I ask the Court to enter this into the record as 'Exhibit A' ... envious of what? lol an analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based also, the method I was using in RESPONSE to the idea that the elite having power is a problem quite different from the Ad hominem methods used by others,,,,Exhibit A indeed,,,,,LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 05/21/10 02:23 PM
|
|
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." We won our independence from Great Britain so we, as Americans, and as States, could govern ourselves. But Great Britain and the monarchy has infiltrated this country and bankrupted it. The Fed is broke, in dept to foreign powers. The I.R.S. is a glorified collection agency. The C.I.A. works for the queen's court, does not answer to the U.S. government or our President. The mossad and the CIA are gun runners and terrorists organizations. I shall make my own rules and do what is right. I declare that I am free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We won our independence from Great Britain so we, as Americans, and as States, could govern ourselves
can we have both INDEPENDENT States and UNITED STATES if each state governs itself, what makes the fifty states united? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So then, willing2, are you willing to be punished? Have you been a bad boy?
A verrrrrrry bad boy! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He doesn't condone racism, this is a lie propagated by the lefty wing nuts and has no merit and is pure garbage. None of what was posted is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 05/21/10 02:49 PM
|
|
We won our independence from Great Britain so we, as Americans, and as States, could govern ourselves can we have both INDEPENDENT States and UNITED STATES if each state governs itself, what makes the fifty states united? The states can govern themselves. What makes them united is the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IT IS A CORPORATION. And what makes them united is that if they don't do as they are told by the federal government, the federal government will cease to fund some of their special projects. In other words, states get money from the federal government. If they decide not to abide by the federal government's rules they get their allowances cut. Its all about money. If each state would work at being financially independent and refuse the federal government's money, they could basically do as they pleased as far as governing themselves and making their own laws. Laws vary from state to state because states have the power to make their own laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He doesn't condone racism, this is a lie propagated by the lefty wing nuts and has no merit and is pure garbage. None of what was posted is true. Thanks,  You are right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He doesn't condone racism, this is a lie propagated by the lefty wing nuts and has no merit and is pure garbage. None of what was posted is true. I agree. AT least from what has been posted so far, he condones racism about as much as OBAma promotes communism,,,, |
|
|
|
|
