Your Version of a Perfect Political Climate or Society?!

[PaintMyHouse]

The Original without the Bill of Rights, or that and what came after?

I notice that you remove the Bill of Rights.

Do you find the Bill of Rights to be a negative?

The benevolent dictator that you want would, yes?

Actually it was he that removed the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution didn't have that, hence my question.

 

[Mac1958]

The Original without the Bill of Rights, or that and what came after?

I notice that you remove the Bill of Rights.

Do you find the Bill of Rights to be a negative?

The benevolent dictator that you want would, yes?

Actually it was he that removed the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution didn't have that, hence my question.

Okay, but please answer the two questions, I'm curious.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

Actually, I've seen quite a few lefties over the years who will admit to preferring something like a "benevolent dictatorship".

In their heart of hearts, they would be quite satisfied to be dictated to, to be satisfied with what the dictator provides, living a simple, subservient, low-key life in which we all work for a greater collective and want for little, all at the cost of certain freedoms and the ability to improve their own lives.

I guess I can see some attraction there, in some ways. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this notion truly is a utopia, a simplistic pipe dream, it can't happen. But these people are still willing to work towards it, trying to concentrate power in a central authority the best they can.

I suspect there are many more who won't articulate this desire, but still harbor it.

.

Their "visions" truly are fantasies of their own, limited design based on nothing but wishful thinking. They believe that voting for a Socialist Democrat will solve the world's (and their personal) problems.

There's a lot of wishful thinking in the Constitution. Don't knock it.

Not at all. It doesn't enumerate unlimited powers to the govt. That's what really has you upset. Lets not kid ourselves.

I'm not upset in the slightest, you are. The country evolved, and you haven't.

Evolved into what? You're way too vague.

Evolved into a nation of many cultures and people, all of whom should have their rights respected. That in and of itself is utopian, and very liberal of course.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Original without the Bill of Rights, or that and what came after?

I notice that you remove the Bill of Rights.

Do you find the Bill of Rights to be a negative?

The benevolent dictator that you want would, yes?

Actually it was he that removed the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution didn't have that, hence my question.

Okay, but please answer the two questions, I'm curious.

.

No, and for the most part.

 

[Mac1958]

The Original without the Bill of Rights, or that and what came after?

I notice that you remove the Bill of Rights.

Do you find the Bill of Rights to be a negative?

The benevolent dictator that you want would, yes?

Actually it was he that removed the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution didn't have that, hence my question.

Okay, but please answer the two questions, I'm curious.

.

No, and for the most part.

So, knowing that a benevolent dictator would not want to operate under our Bill of Rights, would you be willing to give them up?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Original without the Bill of Rights, or that and what came after?

I notice that you remove the Bill of Rights.

Do you find the Bill of Rights to be a negative?

The benevolent dictator that you want would, yes?

Actually it was he that removed the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution didn't have that, hence my question.

Okay, but please answer the two questions, I'm curious.

.

No, and for the most part.

So, knowing that a benevolent dictator would not want to operate under our Bill of Rights, would you be willing to give them up?

I'm willing to give them up as they sit, and for the most part everyone already has. They need to be rewritten to make them work for the times. What they say hasn't been true for a very long time. The spirit of them is still there but in reality those rights are long gone.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

 

[hipeter924]

Being able to have my planet, and invite who I want to tea. People had better leave their ISIS, civil wars, and serial killers at home though.

Hold on, no wonder people take on Mormonism. They get their own planet when they 'die'.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

Your idea suppresses people and indirectly places them in bondage while the elites rule. Why does that appeal to you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

Your idea suppresses people and indirectly places them in bondage while the elites rule. Why does that appeal to you?

I'm an Elite.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

Actually, I've seen quite a few lefties over the years who will admit to preferring something like a "benevolent dictatorship".

In their heart of hearts, they would be quite satisfied to be dictated to, to be satisfied with what the dictator provides, living a simple, subservient, low-key life in which we all work for a greater collective and want for little, all at the cost of certain freedoms and the ability to improve their own lives.

I guess I can see some attraction there, in some ways. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this notion truly is a utopia, a simplistic pipe dream, it can't happen. But these people are still willing to work towards it, trying to concentrate power in a central authority the best they can.

I suspect there are many more who won't articulate this desire, but still harbor it.

.

They're happy to be led around by the nose. Essentially, in bondage. Thats what they yearn for. It sure isn't freedom.

The freedom you want is anarchy, and they don't want to be led around, they want to be left in peace to live their lives without assholes like you trying to turn back the clocks.

No, no. I do not want anarchy. That's equally as bad as what you desire. I'm fine with our constitution. Your style of governance creates poverty, sickness, bondage, and sorrow.

A benevolent dictatorship does nothing of the kind. The entire point of it is to care for the needs of everyone while still getting something done. And the only way to do such a thing is from the top down, very top-down.

That has never happened in the history of mankind.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

Your idea suppresses people and indirectly places them in bondage while the elites rule. Why does that appeal to you?

I'm an Elite.

Oh, OK. How so?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

Actually, I've seen quite a few lefties over the years who will admit to preferring something like a "benevolent dictatorship".

In their heart of hearts, they would be quite satisfied to be dictated to, to be satisfied with what the dictator provides, living a simple, subservient, low-key life in which we all work for a greater collective and want for little, all at the cost of certain freedoms and the ability to improve their own lives.

I guess I can see some attraction there, in some ways. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this notion truly is a utopia, a simplistic pipe dream, it can't happen. But these people are still willing to work towards it, trying to concentrate power in a central authority the best they can.

I suspect there are many more who won't articulate this desire, but still harbor it.

.

They're happy to be led around by the nose. Essentially, in bondage. Thats what they yearn for. It sure isn't freedom.

The freedom you want is anarchy, and they don't want to be led around, they want to be left in peace to live their lives without assholes like you trying to turn back the clocks.

No, no. I do not want anarchy. That's equally as bad as what you desire. I'm fine with our constitution. Your style of governance creates poverty, sickness, bondage, and sorrow.

A benevolent dictatorship does nothing of the kind. The entire point of it is to care for the needs of everyone while still getting something done. And the only way to do such a thing is from the top down, very top-down.

That has never happened in the history of mankind.

Never say never. If God is possible, so is it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

Your idea suppresses people and indirectly places them in bondage while the elites rule. Why does that appeal to you?

I'm an Elite.

Oh, OK. How so?

My people founded the place, my people always had a vote. It was founded as a "democracy for the few", a democratic republic with the elites in charge. That's why it's fucked up now, the ditch diggers can vote, and they weren't supposed to.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They're happy to be led around by the nose. Essentially, in bondage. Thats what they yearn for. It sure isn't freedom.

The freedom you want is anarchy, and they don't want to be led around, they want to be left in peace to live their lives without assholes like you trying to turn back the clocks.

No, no. I do not want anarchy. That's equally as bad as what you desire. I'm fine with our constitution. Your style of governance creates poverty, sickness, bondage, and sorrow.

A benevolent dictatorship does nothing of the kind. The entire point of it is to care for the needs of everyone while still getting something done. And the only way to do such a thing is from the top down, very top-down.

That has never happened in the history of mankind.

Never say never. If God is possible, so is it.

It will happen but mankind will have nothing to do with it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The freedom you want is anarchy, and they don't want to be led around, they want to be left in peace to live their lives without assholes like you trying to turn back the clocks.

No, no. I do not want anarchy. That's equally as bad as what you desire. I'm fine with our constitution. Your style of governance creates poverty, sickness, bondage, and sorrow.

A benevolent dictatorship does nothing of the kind. The entire point of it is to care for the needs of everyone while still getting something done. And the only way to do such a thing is from the top down, very top-down.

That has never happened in the history of mankind.

Never say never. If God is possible, so is it.

It will happen but mankind will have nothing to do with it.

Then I'm guessing you are not opposed to a Benevolent Dictatorship then, as long as it's your kind? Now you know.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

This has actually been very instructive.

I don't think it's necessarily the Constitution that the hard left has a problem with, it's the Bill of Rights.

That would explain quite a bit.

.

Politics, religion, and reactionary humans are what stand in their way, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This country was founded by Liberal Elites, and now it's way too fucking democratic, and fucked up because of it. The pitchforks were never supposed to have a vote.

Your idea suppresses people and indirectly places them in bondage while the elites rule. Why does that appeal to you?

I'm an Elite.

Oh, OK. How so?

My people founded the place, my people always had a vote. It was founded as a "democracy for the few", a democratic republic with the elites in charge. That's why it's fucked up now, the ditch diggers can vote, and they weren't supposed to.

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote? Why do you place no value on their life and value on a dictator who causes strife, death, suffering, poverty, weakness, bondage and so on

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why don't you want the ditch diggers to vote?

They make bad decisions, and vote for bad people, obviously.

And read up on this fellow, it will help you understand that it isn't such a bad thing sometimes: Josip Broz Tito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sometimes only a strongman can hold a nation together.

I've read about him. Lavish lifestyle, confiscated land from citizens, hung out with the celebrities and looked down on the populace.