Liberals, Liberty and Conservative.....<---------Not Parties! So STOP this!

[elektra]

Let me start with Liberty. Liberty is a major part of every platform. No platform stands against it, except for the platform that only focuses on Liberty, Libertarians. They've gained a specific group of voters by making politics easier to understand and without so much homework and thinking. It's Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. They can answer fast; Should bikers wear helmets? Should people wear seatbelts? Should we be able to smoke in public buildings? because the answer is always LIBERTY, HELL YEA WE SHOULD!. They don't understand that certain Liberties can directly affect the Liberties of others. I could give a million examples, but I love the simple "roosters in town" Libertarian topic. "HELL YES" is their perspective, naturally. "But it doesn't take a rooster to make an egg and most towns allow chickens. If they don't, that's a good debate, not roosters.

Conservative. (Less of) One definition of Conservative is, "Unwilling or unable to change" and it is spot on. But Conservative means more than that. We want to Conserve our Environment (Yep, not a Liberal thing). We want to Conserve our money. And we want a Conservative amount of Government. I want to rely on a Conservative amount of gasoline.

Liberal. (More of) One definition of Liberalism is more power and control by Government, and this is spot on. But Liberal means more than that. We want Liberal amounts of Freedom and no Oppression. We want a Liberal amount of THINKING. We want to limit the power of the State/Federal Government and give it to We The People.

All PARTIES should focus on Liberty, Conservation of the right things and Liberal actions on the right issues.

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Using law to prevent gays from getting married, is one.

Yea, using law was dumb. It's not a matter of law or tradition.

Families invented marriage, society and history defined the definition of marriage.

Now the Marxist hiding as Democrats, the Democrats who are Lawyers, are doing what Marxist do, destroy the system they oppose.

Society defines government, government does not define society.

A war is brewing, as Democrats state, democrats believe Marxism will rise from the ashes of the revolution, first though, they must enrage the population against ourselves.

Marxism has won. Marxism is entrenched in our Republic, Marxism must be removed physically, not intellectually.

 

[elektra]

Let me start with Liberty. Liberty is a major part of every platform. No platform stands against it, except for the platform that only focuses on Liberty, Libertarians. They've gained a specific group of voters by making politics easier to understand and without so much homework and thinking. It's Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. They can answer fast; Should bikers wear helmets? Should people wear seatbelts? Should we be able to smoke in public buildings? because the answer is always LIBERTY, HELL YEA WE SHOULD!. They don't understand that certain Liberties can directly affect the Liberties of others. I could give a million examples, but I love the simple "roosters in town" Libertarian topic. "HELL YES" is their perspective, naturally. "But it doesn't take a rooster to make an egg and most towns allow chickens. If they don't, that's a good debate, not roosters.

Conservative. (Less of) One definition of Conservative is, "Unwilling or unable to change" and it is spot on. But Conservative means more than that. We want to Conserve our Environment (Yep, not a Liberal thing). We want to Conserve our money. And we want a Conservative amount of Government. I want to rely on a Conservative amount of gasoline.

Liberal. (More of) One definition of Liberalism is more power and control by Government, and this is spot on. But Liberal means more than that. We want Liberal amounts of Freedom and no Oppression. We want a Liberal amount of THINKING. We want to limit the power of the State/Federal Government and give it to We The People.

All PARTIES should focus on Liberty, Conservation of the right things and Liberal actions on the right issues.

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Why are we not allowed to get naked when the bible openly states that only people with shame fear being naked. Today it's porn.

Lots of people can not handle seeing people naked, they get hard-ons, urges for sex they can not control.

 

[elektra]

Let me start with Liberty. Liberty is a major part of every platform. No platform stands against it, except for the platform that only focuses on Liberty, Libertarians. They've gained a specific group of voters by making politics easier to understand and without so much homework and thinking. It's Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. They can answer fast; Should bikers wear helmets? Should people wear seatbelts? Should we be able to smoke in public buildings? because the answer is always LIBERTY, HELL YEA WE SHOULD!. They don't understand that certain Liberties can directly affect the Liberties of others. I could give a million examples, but I love the simple "roosters in town" Libertarian topic. "HELL YES" is their perspective, naturally. "But it doesn't take a rooster to make an egg and most towns allow chickens. If they don't, that's a good debate, not roosters.

Conservative. (Less of) One definition of Conservative is, "Unwilling or unable to change" and it is spot on. But Conservative means more than that. We want to Conserve our Environment (Yep, not a Liberal thing). We want to Conserve our money. And we want a Conservative amount of Government. I want to rely on a Conservative amount of gasoline.

Liberal. (More of) One definition of Liberalism is more power and control by Government, and this is spot on. But Liberal means more than that. We want Liberal amounts of Freedom and no Oppression. We want a Liberal amount of THINKING. We want to limit the power of the State/Federal Government and give it to We The People.

All PARTIES should focus on Liberty, Conservation of the right things and Liberal actions on the right issues.

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

 

[MisterBeale]

Sorry, your third definition has nothing whatever to do with "Liberalism". It's actually the opposite.

I have hundreds of bookmarks it would be so difficult for me to find it, but you should post that definition and history of political parties and how they got their names.

This kid doesn't know a whole lot about politics or what he is talking about. His conception of Libertarians is insulting.

I wonder if he has even taken a basic college level government course.

Political basics is "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist". This was so until States abused their Freedom and Liberty with Slavery.

Should we use a Liberal amount of Government to have slaves MisterBeale? Should we be that "FREE"?

States "ABUSED THEIR FREEDOM?!?!"

I have news for you kid, freedom was NOT, and is NOT, for the federal government to give out. The states were, and ARE, supposed to be sovereign under the constitution.

Let me reacquaint you with a little thing called the tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself. You know why? Because it is part of the original constitution. I swear, HOW OLD ARE YOU? Did you learn anything in that state indoctrination camp they called school? Didn't you ever hear of the 3/5 compromise?

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Therefore, your contention that the states, "abused" their freedom is specious at best, and at worst, just nonsense. So the Federalist government USED slavery as an excuse to exert it's authority and consolidate it's power. The nation has never been the same since. The people lost a significant amount of freedom, and the elites have been considerably more corrupt. The slaves might have been freed, but ALL the poor and middle classes were made into slaves as a result.

Especially some years later with the passage of the income tax amendment.

As far as the Elites using government to makes us all slaves? Hey, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in government at all, so why ask me? But to get straight to your question, if completely free to do so, they wouldn't take you up on your offer even if they could. They have found that slaves are more productive if they are under the illusion that they are free. You think you are free don't you? But yet you willingly pay every tax they levy on you, eh? Huh, some freedom.

Most countries had freed their slaves by the time the American Civil War had happened. Why? Because slavery is woefully counterproductive. But, you ARE a slave now. You just don't know it. That's why next to anarchists, libertarians are the most evolved of the politically aware. Anyone that truly understands politics, understands that making laws to FORCE people to be educated, and FORCE them to have no other option of survival but to get a job in the state run economy and then FORCE them to pay taxes IS slavery.

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself.
^Then you post a very basic Nihilist video. Nihilism isn't found in our Constitution and attacks everything Government is and should be.

If you wanted a free America where no government was around and we just got naked and ate from the ground, you should stand up against the slaughter of the Indians, because that is what America was.

When I intimated that they were not "abusing," their freedom, you need to put that in historical context. You are cherry picking my text. Did you not read my post? I PROVED that the states were not abusing their freedom, that the states had every right to do what they were doing, yet you did not refute my proof, why not?

According to our standards today, of course I would agree with you. But that was not the case back then. You are posting a video of a comedian today, to argue against a state of mind back then. That's disingenuous and sophomoric. How can I have a discussion with you if you do this?

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To your second point, all I can say is, to point out that my video seems to you to be "nihilistic," in regards to governmental authority? Well. . . .GOOD. I am glad your eyes are beginning to have your mind opened. What the elites tricked the American colonists into fighting for, and what it gave them, are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!

​

James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu who believed monarchy. Madison was also influenced by the writings of British empiricist philosopher John Locke, himself "a major investor in the English slave trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-Republican ideology and commented on how illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it - (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from withina legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America;" the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is found in the last line, not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America" and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles are for you." The point being that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.
The Constitution Con - An Article by Michael Tsarion. Part Two of Weapons of Mass Destruction Found...The Con of the US Constitution...The British Control of America...​

 

[AntiParty]

Let me start with Liberty. Liberty is a major part of every platform. No platform stands against it, except for the platform that only focuses on Liberty, Libertarians. They've gained a specific group of voters by making politics easier to understand and without so much homework and thinking. It's Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. They can answer fast; Should bikers wear helmets? Should people wear seatbelts? Should we be able to smoke in public buildings? because the answer is always LIBERTY, HELL YEA WE SHOULD!. They don't understand that certain Liberties can directly affect the Liberties of others. I could give a million examples, but I love the simple "roosters in town" Libertarian topic. "HELL YES" is their perspective, naturally. "But it doesn't take a rooster to make an egg and most towns allow chickens. If they don't, that's a good debate, not roosters.

Conservative. (Less of) One definition of Conservative is, "Unwilling or unable to change" and it is spot on. But Conservative means more than that. We want to Conserve our Environment (Yep, not a Liberal thing). We want to Conserve our money. And we want a Conservative amount of Government. I want to rely on a Conservative amount of gasoline.

Liberal. (More of) One definition of Liberalism is more power and control by Government, and this is spot on. But Liberal means more than that. We want Liberal amounts of Freedom and no Oppression. We want a Liberal amount of THINKING. We want to limit the power of the State/Federal Government and give it to We The People.

All PARTIES should focus on Liberty, Conservation of the right things and Liberal actions on the right issues.

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Using law to prevent gays from getting married, is one.

Yea, using law was dumb. It's not a matter of law or tradition.

Families invented marriage, society and history defined the definition of marriage.

Now the Marxist hiding as Democrats, the Democrats who are Lawyers, are doing what Marxist do, destroy the system they oppose.

Society defines government, government does not define society.

A war is brewing, as Democrats state, democrats believe Marxism will rise from the ashes of the revolution, first though, they must enrage the population against ourselves.

Marxism has won. Marxism is entrenched in our Republic, Marxism must be removed physically, not intellectually.

"A war is brewing", it was, until Ted Cruz played his last card first. The Americans that hated politics woke up and realized there are some crazy brained people out there.

Perhaps you can explain to me the scariest perspective of Marxism. Because "There is no single definitive Marxist theory"

I see people scared to death of the apocalypse, I see people scared to death of Socialism, I see people scared to death of Communism, I see people scared to death of Marxism, I see people scared to death of gun control.

Communism is a legit threat to our way of thinking, but brains can beat Communism. I'm just curious what your fear of Marxism is. Are you able to think and type for yourself or will you just use an internet research device? I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying,"
There is no single definitive Marxist theory"

 

[AntiParty]

Let me start with Liberty. Liberty is a major part of every platform. No platform stands against it, except for the platform that only focuses on Liberty, Libertarians. They've gained a specific group of voters by making politics easier to understand and without so much homework and thinking. It's Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. They can answer fast; Should bikers wear helmets? Should people wear seatbelts? Should we be able to smoke in public buildings? because the answer is always LIBERTY, HELL YEA WE SHOULD!. They don't understand that certain Liberties can directly affect the Liberties of others. I could give a million examples, but I love the simple "roosters in town" Libertarian topic. "HELL YES" is their perspective, naturally. "But it doesn't take a rooster to make an egg and most towns allow chickens. If they don't, that's a good debate, not roosters.

Conservative. (Less of) One definition of Conservative is, "Unwilling or unable to change" and it is spot on. But Conservative means more than that. We want to Conserve our Environment (Yep, not a Liberal thing). We want to Conserve our money. And we want a Conservative amount of Government. I want to rely on a Conservative amount of gasoline.

Liberal. (More of) One definition of Liberalism is more power and control by Government, and this is spot on. But Liberal means more than that. We want Liberal amounts of Freedom and no Oppression. We want a Liberal amount of THINKING. We want to limit the power of the State/Federal Government and give it to We The People.

All PARTIES should focus on Liberty, Conservation of the right things and Liberal actions on the right issues.

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

Because there are laws, LAWS, LAWS against it.

Should the police control your decision on anal sex? I don't do it because I think there is a better spot to put it. But I don't fear other perspectives.

 

[Pogo]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

 

[elektra]

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Using law to prevent gays from getting married, is one.

Yea, using law was dumb. It's not a matter of law or tradition.

Families invented marriage, society and history defined the definition of marriage.

Now the Marxist hiding as Democrats, the Democrats who are Lawyers, are doing what Marxist do, destroy the system they oppose.

Society defines government, government does not define society.

A war is brewing, as Democrats state, democrats believe Marxism will rise from the ashes of the revolution, first though, they must enrage the population against ourselves.

Marxism has won. Marxism is entrenched in our Republic, Marxism must be removed physically, not intellectually.

"A war is brewing", it was, until Ted Cruz played his last card first. The Americans that hated politics woke up and realized there are some crazy brained people out there.

Perhaps you can explain to me the scariest perspective of Marxism. Because "There is no single definitive Marxist theory"

I see people scared to death of the apocalypse, I see people scared to death of Socialism, I see people scared to death of Communism, I see people scared to death of Marxism, I see people scared to death of gun control.

Communism is a legit threat to our way of thinking, but brains can beat Communism. I'm just curious what your fear of Marxism is. Are you able to think and type for yourself or will you just use an internet research device? I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying,"
There is no single definitive Marxist theory"

My fear is the same fear I have of both Democrats and Republicans, power corrupts. Consider any system as perfect in theory, but all political systems are executed by humans, and humans are humans. With the same weakness, or desire, for money and power. Its a big thing as a politician, or as a person to wield power.

So the fear is a real fear, to fear the worst in people.

Marxism concentrates that power in the hands of the few.

My fear is starvation, no energy, no ability to pay debt, my fear is my children will be at the mercy of farms in China, my fear is very real, more food is imported than any time in our history.

My fear is a man such as Obama who hates the United States of America, purposely punishing us.

My fear is controlled disease, which we now see.

My fear is the government will pick what kind of Electrical Power I must purchase, even if its extremely expensive.

My fear is real, the incompetence of those in Politics, those who work in the Bureaucracy, the incompetence of Government workers cost us literally Billions, if not Trillions.

Our government has grown so large there is an Activist/Tyrant in positions of power, in different governments, local, city, state, county, regional, national, that interfere with my life.

 

[AntiParty]

Sorry, your third definition has nothing whatever to do with "Liberalism". It's actually the opposite.

I have hundreds of bookmarks it would be so difficult for me to find it, but you should post that definition and history of political parties and how they got their names.

This kid doesn't know a whole lot about politics or what he is talking about. His conception of Libertarians is insulting.

I wonder if he has even taken a basic college level government course.

Political basics is "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist". This was so until States abused their Freedom and Liberty with Slavery.

Should we use a Liberal amount of Government to have slaves MisterBeale? Should we be that "FREE"?

States "ABUSED THEIR FREEDOM?!?!"

I have news for you kid, freedom was NOT, and is NOT, for the federal government to give out. The states were, and ARE, supposed to be sovereign under the constitution.

Let me reacquaint you with a little thing called the tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself. You know why? Because it is part of the original constitution. I swear, HOW OLD ARE YOU? Did you learn anything in that state indoctrination camp they called school? Didn't you ever hear of the 3/5 compromise?

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Therefore, your contention that the states, "abused" their freedom is specious at best, and at worst, just nonsense. So the Federalist government USED slavery as an excuse to exert it's authority and consolidate it's power. The nation has never been the same since. The people lost a significant amount of freedom, and the elites have been considerably more corrupt. The slaves might have been freed, but ALL the poor and middle classes were made into slaves as a result.

Especially some years later with the passage of the income tax amendment.

As far as the Elites using government to makes us all slaves? Hey, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in government at all, so why ask me? But to get straight to your question, if completely free to do so, they wouldn't take you up on your offer even if they could. They have found that slaves are more productive if they are under the illusion that they are free. You think you are free don't you? But yet you willingly pay every tax they levy on you, eh? Huh, some freedom.

Most countries had freed their slaves by the time the American Civil War had happened. Why? Because slavery is woefully counterproductive. But, you ARE a slave now. You just don't know it. That's why next to anarchists, libertarians are the most evolved of the politically aware. Anyone that truly understands politics, understands that making laws to FORCE people to be educated, and FORCE them to have no other option of survival but to get a job in the state run economy and then FORCE them to pay taxes IS slavery.

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself.
^Then you post a very basic Nihilist video. Nihilism isn't found in our Constitution and attacks everything Government is and should be.

If you wanted a free America where no government was around and we just got naked and ate from the ground, you should stand up against the slaughter of the Indians, because that is what America was.

When I intimated that they were not "abusing," their freedom, you need to put that in historical context. You are cherry picking my text. Did you not read my post? I PROVED that the states were not abusing their freedom, that the states had every right to do what they were doing, yet you did not refute my proof, why not?

According to our standards today, of course I would agree with you. But that was not the case back then. You are posting a video of a comedian today, to argue against a state of mind back then. That's disingenuous and sophomoric. How can I have a discussion with you if you do this?

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To your second point, all I can say is, to point out that my video seems to you to be "nihilistic," in regards to governmental authority? Well. . . .GOOD. I am glad your eyes are beginning to have your mind opened. What the elites tricked the American colonists into fighting for, and what it gave them, are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!

​

James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu who believed monarchy. Madison was also influenced by the writings of British empiricist philosopher John Locke, himself "a major investor in the English slave trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-Republican ideology and commented on how illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it - (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from withina legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America;" the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is found in the last line, not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America" and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles are for you." The point being that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.
The Constitution Con - An Article by Michael Tsarion. Part Two of Weapons of Mass Destruction Found...The Con of the US Constitution...The British Control of America...​

"I PROVED that the states were not abusing their freedom, that the states had every right to do what they were doing,"

The States DID NOT stand against Constitutional Laws during slavery. Slavery was OK by the Constitution.
I have a feeling you think you cornered me on a very basic topic. Yes, the States had the right to decide. Once We The People saw the Government wasn't doing anything, the people decided the process of "People in one state voting for a single soul to represent them fully" was not ok anymore.

As we see in this thread and in America, some are SCARED TO DEATH of every American having a vote. Some for good reason.

I want to agree and say that the corruption will end if only the States had supreme power and not one person. Problem is, they all work for the very same corrupt sources.

 

[AntiParty]

Sorry, your third definition has nothing whatever to do with "Liberalism". It's actually the opposite.

I have hundreds of bookmarks it would be so difficult for me to find it, but you should post that definition and history of political parties and how they got their names.

This kid doesn't know a whole lot about politics or what he is talking about. His conception of Libertarians is insulting.

I wonder if he has even taken a basic college level government course.

Political basics is "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist". This was so until States abused their Freedom and Liberty with Slavery.

Should we use a Liberal amount of Government to have slaves MisterBeale? Should we be that "FREE"?

States "ABUSED THEIR FREEDOM?!?!"

I have news for you kid, freedom was NOT, and is NOT, for the federal government to give out. The states were, and ARE, supposed to be sovereign under the constitution.

Let me reacquaint you with a little thing called the tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself. You know why? Because it is part of the original constitution. I swear, HOW OLD ARE YOU? Did you learn anything in that state indoctrination camp they called school? Didn't you ever hear of the 3/5 compromise?

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Therefore, your contention that the states, "abused" their freedom is specious at best, and at worst, just nonsense. So the Federalist government USED slavery as an excuse to exert it's authority and consolidate it's power. The nation has never been the same since. The people lost a significant amount of freedom, and the elites have been considerably more corrupt. The slaves might have been freed, but ALL the poor and middle classes were made into slaves as a result.

Especially some years later with the passage of the income tax amendment.

As far as the Elites using government to makes us all slaves? Hey, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in government at all, so why ask me? But to get straight to your question, if completely free to do so, they wouldn't take you up on your offer even if they could. They have found that slaves are more productive if they are under the illusion that they are free. You think you are free don't you? But yet you willingly pay every tax they levy on you, eh? Huh, some freedom.

Most countries had freed their slaves by the time the American Civil War had happened. Why? Because slavery is woefully counterproductive. But, you ARE a slave now. You just don't know it. That's why next to anarchists, libertarians are the most evolved of the politically aware. Anyone that truly understands politics, understands that making laws to FORCE people to be educated, and FORCE them to have no other option of survival but to get a job in the state run economy and then FORCE them to pay taxes IS slavery.

You can call slavery an "abuse" if you like, but you are fooling yourself.
^Then you post a very basic Nihilist video. Nihilism isn't found in our Constitution and attacks everything Government is and should be.

If you wanted a free America where no government was around and we just got naked and ate from the ground, you should stand up against the slaughter of the Indians, because that is what America was.

When I intimated that they were not "abusing," their freedom, you need to put that in historical context. You are cherry picking my text. Did you not read my post? I PROVED that the states were not abusing their freedom, that the states had every right to do what they were doing, yet you did not refute my proof, why not?

According to our standards today, of course I would agree with you. But that was not the case back then. You are posting a video of a comedian today, to argue against a state of mind back then. That's disingenuous and sophomoric. How can I have a discussion with you if you do this?

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To your second point, all I can say is, to point out that my video seems to you to be "nihilistic," in regards to governmental authority? Well. . . .GOOD. I am glad your eyes are beginning to have your mind opened. What the elites tricked the American colonists into fighting for, and what it gave them, are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!

​

James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu who believed monarchy. Madison was also influenced by the writings of British empiricist philosopher John Locke, himself "a major investor in the English slave trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-Republican ideology and commented on how illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it - (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from withina legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America;" the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is found in the last line, not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America" and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles are for you." The point being that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.
The Constitution Con - An Article by Michael Tsarion. Part Two of Weapons of Mass Destruction Found...The Con of the US Constitution...The British Control of America...​

I later saw your MEME of you attacking our Constitution. (due to taxation)

 

[AntiParty]

Why are we not allowed to get naked when the bible openly states that only people with shame fear being naked. Today it's porn.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

I don't think you replied to the correct post. Because I can read.

Shame of being naked came after eating an apple. Would this mean people without shame are able to be nude today? Or do we need to force shame?

 

[elektra]

Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of. If we lived in a liberal society with liberal laws, we'd seek to change alot of them. If a liberal lives in a society with very progressive rules, they would be unwilling to change the laws.

Needless to say the rest of your post is the same kind of jibberish. If you want to know what conservatism really stands for, then ask a true conservative. Don't assume you know the causes of other political ideologies aside from your own because you obviously don't.

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

Because there are laws, LAWS, LAWS against it.

Should the police control your decision on anal sex? I don't do it because I think there is a better spot to put it. But I don't fear other perspectives.

Bullshit!! Now that everyone pays taxes so that the government, through my labor, pays for hospital visits and doctors, now Anal Sex has become a national interest, a nation expense. Anal sex damages the rectum, physically. How much will that cost be as we are forced to pay for the repairs? Rips, tears, hemorrhoids.

So it is in the interest of the budget, that people who only practice natural sex.

No entry through an exit, in the interest of not using our doctors for anything un-naturally, self inflicted.

 

[AntiParty]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

I know you think you have an answer. Truth is people have been correcting certain words all along. It's generally only derogatory terms that gain a different definition.

Shit becomes poop. Fuck becomes sex. Retarded becomes mentally handicapped. Redskins become=????????

 

[AntiParty]

"Conservative is not "unwilling or unable to change". That's the dumbest definition I have ever heard of."

So you haven't seen anyone clinging to traditions of the past here in 2014?

Like what tradition?

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

Because there are laws, LAWS, LAWS against it.

Should the police control your decision on anal sex? I don't do it because I think there is a better spot to put it. But I don't fear other perspectives.

Bullshit!! Now that everyone pays taxes so that the government, through my labor, pays for hospital visits and doctors, now Anal Sex has become a national interest, a nation expense. Anal sex damages the rectum, physically. How much will that cost be as we are forced to pay for the repairs? Rips, tears, hemorrhoids.

So it is in the interest of the budget, that people who only practice natural sex.

No entry through an exit, in the interest of not using our doctors for anything un-naturally, self inflicted.

I'm intrigued by your limitless information on anal sex and not seat belts. FREEDOM! 'Merica!

I have to edit this; You do know that women have anal sex too correct? Do you want laws preventing women from having anal sex? Again, I don't get it, like you, but will not use law against it.

 

[Pogo]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

I know you think you have an answer. Truth is people have been correcting certain words all along. It's generally only derogatory terms that gain a different definition.

Shit becomes poop. Fuck becomes sex. Retarded becomes mentally handicapped. Redskins become=????????

You're talking about a different thing there; you may be aiming for the social navigations we call "PC". I'm talking linguistic segregation.

It's a bit like religious politics -- the norm of the vanquished becomes the devil of the victor.

 

[AntiParty]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

I know you think you have an answer. Truth is people have been correcting certain words all along. It's generally only derogatory terms that gain a different definition.

Shit becomes poop. Fuck becomes sex. Retarded becomes mentally handicapped. Redskins become=????????

You're talking about a different thing there; you may be aiming for the social navigations we call "PC". I'm talking linguistic segregation.

It's a bit like religious politics -- the norm of the vanquished becomes the devil of the victor.

My points and perspectives were factual and solid. You consistently dodge debate with vague information. Care to debate me on the topic or?

 

[elektra]

Like what tradition?

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

Because there are laws, LAWS, LAWS against it.

Should the police control your decision on anal sex? I don't do it because I think there is a better spot to put it. But I don't fear other perspectives.

Bullshit!! Now that everyone pays taxes so that the government, through my labor, pays for hospital visits and doctors, now Anal Sex has become a national interest, a nation expense. Anal sex damages the rectum, physically. How much will that cost be as we are forced to pay for the repairs? Rips, tears, hemorrhoids.

So it is in the interest of the budget, that people who only practice natural sex.

No entry through an exit, in the interest of not using our doctors for anything un-naturally, self inflicted.

I'm intrigued by your limitless information on anal sex and not seat belts. FREEDOM! 'Merica!

I have to edit this; You do know that women have anal sex too correct? Do you want laws preventing women from having anal sex? Again, I don't get it, like you, but will not use law against it.

I am just speaking technically, we all work to pay for others health care, why should we pay for what is literally physically, damaging. Over time, over a lifetime, while they are old, still taking it, why should our health system be burdened with things people are naturally physically not built for.

Now that the Government controls our health, what people do is everybodys business.

There must be limits, we can only work so much, my labor is now limited.

 

[AntiParty]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Why can we not say anal sex is wrong, physically damaging to the rectum?

Because there are laws, LAWS, LAWS against it.

Should the police control your decision on anal sex? I don't do it because I think there is a better spot to put it. But I don't fear other perspectives.

Bullshit!! Now that everyone pays taxes so that the government, through my labor, pays for hospital visits and doctors, now Anal Sex has become a national interest, a nation expense. Anal sex damages the rectum, physically. How much will that cost be as we are forced to pay for the repairs? Rips, tears, hemorrhoids.

So it is in the interest of the budget, that people who only practice natural sex.

No entry through an exit, in the interest of not using our doctors for anything un-naturally, self inflicted.

I'm intrigued by your limitless information on anal sex and not seat belts. FREEDOM! 'Merica!

I have to edit this; You do know that women have anal sex too correct? Do you want laws preventing women from having anal sex? Again, I don't get it, like you, but will not use law against it.

I am just speaking technically, we all work to pay for others health care, why should we pay for what is literally physically, damaging. Over time, over a lifetime, while they are old, still taking it, why should our health system be burdened with things people are naturally physically not built for.

Now that the Government controls our health, what people do is everybodys business.

There must be limits, we can only work so much, my labor is now limited.

Because, "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving (you) and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because at some point in your life, you will be all of these......"

I have no doubt you are a poor American. Lot's of poor people seek the reasons they are poor even though they work so many hours. Even middle class.

My guess is you haven't answered the riddle in Politics yet. "Which came first, the $$$ or the politician"

 

[Pogo]

Why can't we say shit, fuck and asshole. They are just words with the very same definition of other words we use all the time.

Because those are Anglo-Saxon terms. Blame the Normans, who insisted on replacing the Germanic (e.g. "piss") with the French "urine").

I know you think you have an answer. Truth is people have been correcting certain words all along. It's generally only derogatory terms that gain a different definition.

Shit becomes poop. Fuck becomes sex. Retarded becomes mentally handicapped. Redskins become=????????

You're talking about a different thing there; you may be aiming for the social navigations we call "PC". I'm talking linguistic segregation.

It's a bit like religious politics -- the norm of the vanquished becomes the devil of the victor.

My points and perspectives were factual and solid. You consistently dodge debate with vague information. Care to debate me on the topic or?

Translation:
"It's over my head".

Yeah I know, everything you post is like spewing forth buckets of profundity and shit. Heard it all before, Danth.

Two different approaches but both relevant. Such linguistic preferences as this victor (French) replacing the vanquished (old English) terms, ultimately serve the same purpose as your PC observation: to establish upper and lower social classes.

And there's your tie-in to Liberalism. Real Liberalism I mean, not that OP of yours.

 

[AntiParty]

Many say politicians "CONTROL" media and Corporations. Truth is, Media and Corporations (media is a corporation) buys the President that will do what they ask.

You hate "control" yet you vote for it.

You hate that you are poor yet you vote for your own poverty.

But I'm curious why you hate thinking for yourself as an individual.