New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why must we become either a theoacary or commie hellhole????

Now you're literally grasping at straws (forgive the pun.) There are no strawmen in what I've said.

The Democrats have an agenda. Maybe you'd better start with learning exactly what it is Dems believe in:

https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf

Democracy - "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority"

The U.S. Army printed a manual in 1928. It is TM 2000-25. Allow me to present a few paragraphs:

" Democracy - A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic***negating property rights. Attitude towards law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, licence, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

...



"CITIZENSHIP Republic:

"Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

"(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

"Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

Now, let's forget the Kool Aid talk and get down to the meat and potatoes. The definitions are accurate and are impartial as to political issues. Soooo...

Let me tell you where I disagree with Democrats on some issues. They think they can tax the rich and play Robin Hood. I'll use an analogy because every businessman can relate to this example since it happens every day of the year in America:

I went to work for a company and after a couple of years, increases in taxes forced them to figure out how to stay profitable and in business. So, they told the employees that, due to increased costs (i.e. taxes) they had to continue to give stockholders a profit and, as such, the employees would not get any raises or bonuses until further notice.

So, if the Democrats give you health care, a free college education, etc. know this: milking the rich will only cause the rich to get their money from the poor. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are oblivious to one harsh fact: NOTHING is for free. Government cannot give you anything without first taking it from a taxpayer. And once that taxpayer loses money, they raise the costs of their goods and services; they lay people off; they move their base of operations into countries where it is more conducive to business. But, they aren't going to jack up your wages and let you get more just because the have nots voted for a few freebies.

Now, if you're the "sage" you claim to be, you might try explaining to the people on this board how you ended up supporting a belief system that has failed throughout history. And I know what you're about to say, but don't go there.

The Republicans are stuck on stupid; have become socialist lite. You cannot defend the bass awkwardness of the Democrats by comparing yourself to an Establishment Republican.
A Republic Is a Foster Government for Those Orphaned by Its Constitution

You keep quoting this anti-democratic propaganda as if it were undeniable scientific proof. I couldn't care less what the regime tells me to think. Ever since the Democratic Party was taken over by aristocratic brats of the rich in the 1960s, it has been the party of minorities, which is undemocratic, and it has despised White people.

As for entitlements, that is what mooching HeirHeads get. Take away their unearned benefits and the stockholders can provide more for their employers, who created their wealth. You have to take cut in pay not because of taxes to finance the underclass, but to buy a BMW for the boss's teenage son.
 

TheResister

Council Member
A Republic Is a Foster Government for Those Orphaned by Its Constitution

You keep quoting this anti-democratic propaganda as if it were undeniable scientific proof. I couldn't care less what the regime tells me to think. Ever since the Democratic Party was taken over by aristocratic brats of the rich in the 1960s, it has been the party of minorities, which is undemocratic, and it has despised White people.

As for entitlements, that is what mooching HeirHeads get. Take away their unearned benefits and the stockholders can provide more for their employers, who created their wealth. You have to take cut in pay not because of taxes to finance the underclass, but to buy a BMW for the boss's teenage son.
I'm not disagreeing that employers take advantage of people in the way you describe. But, you are marginalizing a known truth in the business community. Just because the socialists raise taxes to pay for programs and they apply the tax to the rich does not mean it helps the poor.

I don't agree with the Ds or the Rs on how to fix this issue. I think it should work out this way:

Corporations pay somewhere between 39 and forty six percent in taxes. I think that the government could give substantial tax incentives for companies to hire an American workforce and bring back jobs to America. The employers could be given extra tax incentives to take people off welfare and unemployment AND an additional tax break to give the handicapped / aged / unemployable a job.

Then the government could offer tax incentives for companies that pay a percentage above poverty level (i.e. no reason why most companies could not pay at least $12.50 an hour to start.) Eventually, a 42 percent tax rate could be cut in half. It would be a savings because now you don't need to pay someone to collect taxes, another guy to allot the money to government agencies and another agency to distribute the money to those in the various categories. It would be a net win / win.

I am NOT quoting anti-democratic propaganda as you suggest. I'm going more toward non-partisan sources AND Dems themselves. I think you have your own view as to how you think the world ought to work, but don't have any sources upon which t build your case. So, I'm relying on those who are IN the Democratic Party in order to make my decision. Their program is not what any sane person would sign onto.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Don't want to interfere with your discussion but feel the need to say that the two of you, Resister & Sage, are doing exactly what a forum like this should exist to allow people to do. You're debating your different points of view with civility, intelligence, and honesty. I've been reading every post and it's refreshing to see. Insults, willful ignorance, and blind partisanship are found in abundance here. It's great to see respectful and intelligent debate. I know I'm not alone in my feelings about this. Thank you.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Don't want to interfere with your discussion but feel the need to say that the two of you, Resister & Sage, are doing exactly what a forum like this should exist to allow people to do. You're debating your different points of view with civility, intelligence, and honesty. I've been reading every post and it's refreshing to see. Insults, willful ignorance, and blind partisanship are found in abundance here. It's great to see respectful and intelligent debate. I know I'm not alone in my feelings about this. Thank you.
Thank you for noticing. Sage and I disagree, but we've found a way to chide each other without being disrespectful. I think we both agree that we are products of experience and neither of us has a monopoly on all understanding. We welcome your input and that of other posters as well.
 
I'm not disagreeing that employers take advantage of people in the way you describe. But, you are marginalizing a known truth in the business community. Just because the socialists raise taxes to pay for programs and they apply the tax to the rich does not mean it helps the poor.

I don't agree with the Ds or the Rs on how to fix this issue. I think it should work out this way:

Corporations pay somewhere between 39 and forty six percent in taxes. I think that the government could give substantial tax incentives for companies to hire an American workforce and bring back jobs to America. The employers could be given extra tax incentives to take people off welfare and unemployment AND an additional tax break to give the handicapped / aged / unemployable a job.

Then the government could offer tax incentives for companies that pay a percentage above poverty level (i.e. no reason why most companies could not pay at least $12.50 an hour to start.) Eventually, a 42 percent tax rate could be cut in half. It would be a savings because now you don't need to pay someone to collect taxes, another guy to allot the money to government agencies and another agency to distribute the money to those in the various categories. It would be a net win / win.

I am NOT quoting anti-democratic propaganda as you suggest. I'm going more toward non-partisan sources AND Dems themselves. I think you have your own view as to how you think the world ought to work, but don't have any sources upon which t build your case. So, I'm relying on those who are IN the Democratic Party in order to make my decision. Their program is not what any sane person would sign onto.
Ghostocracy

Would you rather tax the living or the dead? Do you think they will haunt you if you don't allow them to determine society's winners and losers after they are dead? Confiscating the inheritance of the 1% alone would take care of all government expenses.

Your proposals are based on the supremacy of the status quo structure. It has no right to exist; tweaking it won't result in much progress and will soon be abandoned. Those at the top should not be the ones suggesting change. They judge things only through their narrow, sheltered, and conceited perspectives. They don't live in the real world, even though they own it.
 
Thank you for noticing. Sage and I disagree, but we've found a way to chide each other without being disrespectful. I think we both agree that we are products of experience and neither of us has a monopoly on all understanding. We welcome your input and that of other posters as well.
Borrowed Tools Are Broken Tools

I see your thoughts as embedded from above. Like Descartes, try to wipe your mind clean of those sources and think only for yourself, according to rules that you figure out strictly on your own, trusting no links to chain your mind down. Even the rulers' meme of "thinking out of the box" is deceptive. It comes from a puzzle that starts within the Establishment's box, goes outside temporarily and staying close, and then comes right back into the box.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Borrowed Tools Are Broken Tools

I see your thoughts as embedded from above. Like Descartes, try to wipe your mind clean of those sources and think only for yourself, according to rules that you figure out strictly on your own, trusting no links to chain your mind down. Even the rulers' meme of "thinking out of the box" is deceptive. It comes from a puzzle that starts within the Establishment's box, goes outside temporarily and staying close, and then comes right back into the box.
I started with what the Democrats have to say about democracy. So, you want to think that is what I think OR that I rely on that???

While you've provided NO sources for your cryptic posts, this is my basic view toward democracy:

http://www.awakeningblog.com/what-is-democracy.html
 
I started with what the Democrats have to say about democracy. So, you want to think that is what I think OR that I rely on that???

While you've provided NO sources for your cryptic posts, this is my basic view toward democracy:

http://www.awakeningblog.com/what-is-democracy.html
Links Are Part of a Chain

I am my own highest authority, so why should I link to mercenary scribblers? They are slurping, bootlicking Diploma Dumbos: a comic-book crew. You miss the point, being under the spell of professional word-merchants. You are hopeless; what's the point of debating someone who thinks he can refute me through quotations from self-serving academic flunkies of the ruling class?

No matter what kind of confused mumbo-jumbo this illogical clown writes, democracy is the absolute rule of the majority and distributes the greatest good to the greatest number. Giving minorities equal rights, when one group alone overrides the majority will, causes anarchy. It also discourages participation of the majority, concentrating power in the 1% and the toxic minorities it uses as weapons of biological class warfare.

All majorities are coalitions of minorities that don't see their allied minorities as threats. Look at the Republicans: millionaires, gun owners, Born-Again Christians, people proud of the superior achievements of the White race, etc.
 

TheResister

Council Member
Links Are Part of a Chain

I am my own highest authority, so why should I link to mercenary scribblers? They are slurping, bootlicking Diploma Dumbos: a comic-book crew. You miss the point, being under the spell of professional word-merchants. You are hopeless; what's the point of debating someone who thinks he can refute me through quotations from self-serving academic flunkies of the ruling class?

No matter what kind of confused mumbo-jumbo this illogical clown writes, democracy is the absolute rule of the majority and distributes the greatest good to the greatest number. Giving minorities equal rights, when one group alone overrides the majority will, causes anarchy. It also discourages participation of the majority, concentrating power in the 1% and the toxic minorities it uses as weapons of biological class warfare.

All majorities are coalitions of minorities that don't see their allied minorities as threats. Look at the Republicans: millionaires, gun owners, Born-Again Christians, people proud of the superior achievements of the White race, etc.
If I had said what you said about yourself, it would have been to be sarcastic and insulting.

The first lie ever foisted on a gullible mankind was people believing that they could be their own God. You are your own highest authority?

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die


And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:



For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil
." (Genesis 3: 3 through 3: 5)


There is a fundamental way that you and I disagree on the way we view life. You really think that majorities can make the best decisions... like Obama, Hitler, etc. Yeah, some of the greatest idiots and tyrants were the result of a popular vote aka majority rule (democracy.)

Mankind has an apparent need to quantify their life in terms of good and evil; right and wrong; moral and immoral. So, we look to a majority opinion OR we seek out an answer from higher authorities.

I happen to believe in the Bible and not necessarily the interpretations of man when applying it. If you read it and then ask yourself what it's rate of success was when people applied the principles, it gives you something of substance to work with.

The first biblical principle that I believe in and support is that of Liberty. Liberty is the freedom to do what I want provided it does not interfere with the Rights of my fellow man. For those who believe in Liberty, it does not take a majority to enforce it. Your viewpoint does. Again, to quote the smartest American that ever lived:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what's for dinner. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results of the vote."

Sorry Sage, but NO majority can tell me what is best for me.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
Again, to quote the smartest American that ever lived:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what's for dinner. A Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the results of the vote."

Sorry Sage, but NO majority can tell me what is best for me.
So there is no source to prove Franklin ever stated this, there are various people from the modern day that attribute it to Franklin, yet not one single source to verify it. There are sources that claim Jefferson stated it, but again no verifiable source to prove either said it.

You really should learn to research much better or, at the very least, quote verifiable quotes in their context.
 

TheResister

Council Member
So there is no source to prove Franklin ever stated this, there are various people from the modern day that attribute it to Franklin, yet not one single source to verify it. There are sources that claim Jefferson stated it, but again no verifiable source to prove either said it.

You really should learn to research much better or, at the very least, quote verifiable quotes in their context.
You'll go to any lengths to try and insult me. But, once again, you've proven to be the dumbest ass on these discussion boards. The fact is, I NEVER said Benjamin Franklin ever wrote or spoke those words.

Looks to me like you just got schooled. BTW, you absolutely are not the smart guy you think you are. It takes a dumb ass to try and start a pissing match every time he posts. You are the dumbest ass to ever grace the face of this earth... and that's besides being chickenshit.

But, once again, there was a classic fail for you... and you won't even be able to say you were wrong.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
You'll go to any lengths to try and insult me. But, once again, you've proven to be the dumbest ass on these discussion boards. The fact is, I NEVER said Benjamin Franklin ever wrote or spoke those words.

Looks to me like you just got schooled. BTW, you absolutely are not the smart guy you think you are. It takes a dumb ass to try and start a pissing match every time he posts. You are the dumbest ass to ever grace the face of this earth... and that's besides being chickenshit.

But, once again, there was a classic fail for you... and you won't even be able to say you were wrong.
So because I point out your inane claim, I insulted you? SMFH

Then who is it you think is the "smartest American that ever lived"?
(this should be good :rolleyes:)

Wow, I got schooled? LMFAO

I'm a chickenshit? LMFAO

Classic Fail? LMFAO

That's right, I won't be able to say I'm wrong, because, quite frankly, I'm not, since that very quote isn't able to be cited to anybody, let alone the "smartest American that ever lived". watafukndumbshit
 

TheResister

Council Member
So because I point out your inane claim, I insulted you? SMFH

Then who is it you think is the "smartest American that ever lived"?
(this should be good :rolleyes:)

Wow, I got schooled? LMFAO

I'm a chickenshit? LMFAO

Classic Fail? LMFAO

That's right, I won't be able to say I'm wrong, because, quite frankly, I'm not, since that very quote isn't able to be cited to anybody, let alone the "smartest American that ever lived". watafukndumbshit
Yes sir you DO have a monopoly on human virtue. You are the smartest man alive, etc., etc. NOT. Since I did not attribute the quote to anyone, your best response would have been to ask your question before setting out to prove how much more superior you are.

You're not an intellectual giant. You are more of a man with a inferiority complex that has to use that word inane when it applies to you most of the time... So, maybe I remind you of someone that used to bust your ass because you do stupid things?

I'm not going to argue with you Liquid Reigns. If you're laughing, you're laughing at yourself. So, here is the answer to your question:

Had you done YOUR research, the Library of Congress burned in 1851. Many one of a kind speeches and other material were burned making it impossible to "prove" that a person said this or that. Many statements are attributed to one guy or another and when a cite does exist, we cannot prove it from original documents since the proof burned. And your little know it all buddies at Snopes.com don't always have the best information.

So, IMO, the smartest American that ever lived is the guy who made obviously intelligent statements wherein the truth is self evident, but we don't know who the Hell he / she is because he didn't take credit for his / her work. OR maybe those alleged authors did say what other people for umpteen years are saying they said.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
Yes sir you DO have a monopoly on human virtue. You are the smartest man alive, etc., etc. NOT. Since I did not attribute the quote to anyone, your best response would have been to ask your question before setting out to prove how much more superior you are.
You attributed the quote to the "smartest American that ever lived". SMFH

You're not an intellectual giant. You are more of a man with a inferiority complex that has to use that word inane when it applies to you most of the time... So, maybe I remind you of someone that used to bust your ass because you do stupid things?
LMFAO Is that like you needing to claim you have experience in everything, especially immigration law, to which you have no experience at all, or that you are vastly superior because you have the largest law library of original books at your home? You are so full of shit that what ever spews from your mouth can be considered either inanity or lies.

I'm not going to argue with you Liquid Reigns. If you're laughing, you're laughing at yourself. So, here is the answer to your question:

Had you done YOUR research, the Library of Congress burned in 1851. Many one of a kind speeches and other material were burned making it impossible to "prove" that a person said this or that. Many statements are attributed to one guy or another and when a cite does exist, we cannot prove it from original documents since the proof burned. And your little know it all buddies at Snopes.com don't always have the best information.
So now you are going to hide behind the fire from 1851. LMFAO A basic google search shows your stupidity. Had it been stated prior to 1851 it would have been mentioned in other documents, books, etc, not at the Library of Congress.

So, IMO, the smartest American that ever lived is the guy who made obviously intelligent statements wherein the truth is self evident, but we don't know who the Hell he / she is because he didn't take credit for his / her work. OR maybe those alleged authors did say what other people for umpteen years are saying they said.
:YAWN: What statement did this "smartest American" actually state, since there are numerous versions of that quote, which quote was the actual quote? SMFH
 

Days

Commentator
So there is no source to prove Franklin ever stated this, there are various people from the modern day that attribute it to Franklin, yet not one single source to verify it. There are sources that claim Jefferson stated it, but again no verifiable source to prove either said it.

You really should learn to research much better or, at the very least, quote verifiable quotes in their context.
why? He used the content of the quote in his argument, so the authorship is a moot point.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
why? He used the content of the quote in his argument, so the authorship is a moot point.
So... Quotes have context, what is the context of said quote, is it within the author of the quotes context, or is it just some made up quote with no context at all? Just putting up a quote from someone doesn't mean that the quote is being used the way it was stated or intended. Usually when you quote somebody, you cite to its usage so that it can be verified and placed into its context.
 

Days

Commentator
So... Quotes have context, what is the context of said quote, is it within the author of the quotes context, or is it just some made up quote with no context at all? Just putting up a quote from someone doesn't mean that the quote is being used the way it was intended. Usually when you quote somebody, you cite their quote so that it can be verified and placed into its context.
... if the crux of your argument is being made by who authored the quote, then yeah, I agree with you. But I felt that this particular time, the crux of his argument was made by the content of the quote, regardless of whether it was a quote of a president or a bum in the street.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
... if the crux of your argument is being made by who authored the quote, then yeah, I agree with you. But I felt that this particular time, the crux of his argument was made by the content of the quote, regardless of whether it was a quote of a president or a bum in the street.
That is the crux of my argument, who authored that quote.
The crux of his argument uses these quotes that he attributes to .....?
He's trying to make his opinion be more than what it is by using unknown quotes and attributing it/them to the "smartest American that ever lived", thereby trying to bolster anything he previously stated.
 

Days

Commentator
That is the crux of my argument, who authored that quote.
The crux of his argument uses these quotes that he attributes to .....?
He's trying to make his opinion be more than what it is by using unknown quotes and attributing it/them to the "smartest American that ever lived", thereby trying to bolster anything he previously stated.
No, he attributed it to the smartest American that ever lived to accentuate the content of the quote.
 

Liquid Reigns

Council Member
No, he attributed it to the smartest American that ever lived to accentuate the content of the quote.
No, he used the quote to poorly attempt to bolster what he previously stated. He attributed it to someone. Who is that someone? Are they credible? What is the context of said quote? etc.etc.etc.
 
Last edited:
Top