Do We Really Have FREEDOM, in America ?

your post about wanting to kill him was removed, which is a sign of your mental acumen corky :thup:
It should not have been removed. I didn't say I WOULD kill him, but just that I felt that way. We all have a right to express how we feel. Simple as that. If anything should have been removed, it is lonelaugher's ageist Post # 30. If it isn't, that is moderator failure, no one else's. If you don't realize this, THAT is a sign of YOUR mental acumen (and notice I managed to say that without name calling)
kay bud now.....do you wish to kill me also or can we move on from all this
 
I haven't seen that side of him. What I've seen is a good person that means no harm to anyone. He has opinions just like everyone else. There're over 7 billion people on this planet, and at least that many different opinions on any subject.
YES YOU HAVE! And right here in this thread in Post # 30, where he said this >> "Everyone! Grab your walkers and put your teeth in! We are gonna stand up!!" A baldfaced attack on older people. If he had said "Everyone grab your waterrmelons and banjos!" We are gonna stand up!! attacking black people, you'd be OK with that too ?
It was a sarcastic remark. It was the usual USMB language that we all hear every single day. In addition, the remark was NOT a reflection of his character. Discussing politics and / or religion evokes language and remarks usually not found in other conversations.
 
Everyone! Grab your walkers and put your teeth in! We are gonna stand up!!
Pretty stupid to joke about what hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS HAVE DIED FOR. Makes you as much an enemy as anyone they ever fought. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mod edit: Don't make cracks about killing other board members.
Americans have died for walkers and false teeth?
 
It was a sarcastic remark. It was the usual USMB language that we all hear every single day. In addition, the remark was NOT a reflection of his character. Discussing politics and / or religion evokes language and remarks usually not found in other conversations.
I hold him responsible for an ageist, despicable remark, and now I hold YOU almost equally responsible for it, by having endorsed it as acceptable. Likewise, with Ravi, who now seems to think older people are fair game for ageist, personal attack insults, as well as 2 other posters who clicked funny on Post # 30, which I reported, and it should be deleted, if there is an ounce of decency in this forum.
 
It was a sarcastic remark. It was the usual USMB language that we all hear every single day. In addition, the remark was NOT a reflection of his character. Discussing politics and / or religion evokes language and remarks usually not found in other conversations.
I hold him responsible for an ageist, despicable remark, and now I hold YOU almost equally responsible for it, by having endorsed it as acceptable. Likewise, with Ravi, who now seems to think older people are fair game for ageist, personal attack insults, as well as 2 other posters who clicked funny on Post # 30, which I reported, and it should be deleted, if there is an ounce of decency in this forum.
OK, no problem. Hold me responsible. Join the crowd. There are many that already have me on a shit list, one more wont make a damn bit of difference to me. Add me to your shit list and put a gold star next to it. I want to be at the very top of that list. Please let me know when someone moves up the list and takes over my top spot. Thanks.
 
You can vote for whoever you want . GOP and dem candidates be damn.
 
The publicity over Trump's political inexperience (which maybe is actually a good thing), and his brash talk, is starting to take an insignificant by comparison back seat, to the massive issue of the GOP establishment rigging the nominating process, and shoving the American voters into a ditch of irrelevance (in terms of the nomination).

This is one of the biggest issues in American history. Do we have a democratic republic based on millions of people VOTING, or don't we ? What does the right to vote really mean, if candidates for president of the United States are going to be selected in back rooms with locked doors, and delegates being bribed to support certain candidates ?

Do we have the free country we like to think we have, with leaders chosen by the will of the people, or DON'T WE ?
We have a free country but not a country where leaders are representative of the majority.
 
Here's another example of yellow journalism, by the media out to derail Trump. The Denver Post ran an article about Cruz receiving all Colorado's delegates, without an election even being held. This was the first sentence of that article >>>

"A day after being trounced by Sen. Ted Cruz in Colorado, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump blasted the state party's process for selecting national delegates and called into question the results."

Trump was not "trounced" by Cruz. One does not get trounced by party bosses paying off delegates to choose another candidate, and without an election (which Trump would have won, polls indicate)

Angry Donald Trump blasts Colorado GOP results as "totally unfair"
 
We have a free country but not a country where leaders are representative of the majority.

When "leaders" represent special interests, in disregard of the people's (voting) will, that is not a free country, IMO.

To be a free country, we would have to be able to vote for and elect leaders, from those votes. that isn't happening.
 
We give the political parties this power . Primaries are just a way for the big 2 to consolidate their power .
Exactly Right. Given the fact that most presidents are merely figureheads and the real governance comes from a back room, it hardly matters who is in the Oval Office. It doesn't matter when you have that typical president who got there by donations from lobbyists, to whom the president thereby becomes indebted to.

In Trump's case however, his lack of indebtedness is an entirely different situation. Here now, we finally have a chance to put someone in the White House who would be free from all those attached strings, and can really represent THE PEOPLE.

We all ought to be doing whatever we can to stop the GOP from denying that to us. They all are only interested in their selfish motives, their perks, their power positions, which they are afraid of losing from a Trump presidency (and they SHOULD lose it)
 
Like "socialism", "liberty" and many other simplistic terms, "freedom" exists along a continuum.

In a representative republic, that point on the continuum depends on those we choose to represent us.

And those we choose to represent us depends on how well they individually make their case.

We all know this stuff, right?
.
 
Like "socialism", "liberty" and many other simplistic terms, "freedom" exists along a continuum.

In a representative republic, that point on the continuum depends on those we choose to represent us.

And those we choose to represent us depends on how well they individually make their case.

We all know this stuff, right?
.
The problem is "we" are NOT choosing. Party bosses are choosing for us. In Colorado, Cruz got all 34 delegates without a single vote being cast. The "We" would have been the voters of Colorado, but they were never given a chance to express their choices. If they would have, Trump would have gotten all 34 delegates (if winner take all). If it were proportional, Trump would have gotten most of the delegates.

I don't blame him for being angry. The people of Colorado should be too.
 

Forum List

Back
Top