McCain's cakewalk

ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Ron Paul will not win the presidency ... ever.

Americans no longer desire liberty, therefore, Ron Paul will not be elected.

The Dankster and Med are prime examples of the "modern" American thinker. They want to squelch the liberties of one, in order to feather the nest of another. Their distain for "the rich" is testimony to that. Oh, they talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, they are statists through and through. A perfect example of this is Med's signature: "Amendment IV, search and seizure rights. Read about them before they're gone." Lofty words there, and yet Med is a devout proponent of the federal income tax system whereby the IRS routinely searches our books and records without warrant.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Ron Paul will not win the presidency ... ever.

Americans no longer desire liberty, therefore, Ron Paul will not be elected.

The Dankster and Med are prime examples of the "modern" American thinker. They want to squelch the liberties of one, in order to feather the nest of another. Their distain for "the rich" is testimony to that. Oh, they talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, they are statists through and through. A perfect example of this is Med's signature: "Amendment IV, search and seizure rights. Read about them before they're gone." Lofty words there, and yet Med is a devout proponent of the federal income tax system whereby the IRS routinely searches our books and records without warrant.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, it is basically your stance that promotes the benefit of the one over the many. "I'm rich, let the rest eat shit" is your mantra. You would pay for no social programs so you could be the miser you are and keep all your (precious) money for yourself. People that believe as you have no place in society. They should all be taken to a deserted Island and dropped off with their boatload of cash, and left to their selfish demises.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Pick which one your definition falls under Vi, yours doesn't fall under websters definition.
I understand simple terms Vi, but like I just said I want you to expound on what you feel that liberty is.
Personally I think you only have a partial concept of what Liberty really is.

Dictionary: liberty noun

1.

a.) The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b.) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

c.) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

4.

a.) A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.

b.) A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.

c.) An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.

5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

idiom:

at liberty

1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.
2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.
 
john.roberts85

john.roberts85

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
I beg to differ my friend. Pat Paulson had no voting record in Congress. Ron Paul does and his record speaks for itself, unlike the others running. Ron Paul is far from a joke...unless you are one of those who finds it perfectly acceptable to piss on the Constitution.

Again, if I may...


No other candidate running for POTUS can even come close to that record. I find the joke in the constituency that is blindly led by the nose by the MSM to elect a candidate that the Ruling Class props up for those of us to vote on. Are you one of those? I for one am not.



You may find him a joke, but I challenge you to scrutinize your candidate's voting record and tell me if it even is close to adhering to our most sacred document, the US Constitution. Those who find a candidate who strictly adheres to the Constitution a "joke" tend to get their information from the MSM and accept it as gospel. My candidate is Ron Paul. Are you up to my challenge? Who's your candidate?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by strictly adheres to the Constitution? Adheres to its intent, adheres to its spirit, or adheres to its words? It's fucking vague in a lot of areas which gives rise to debate between reasonable people; no one has a monopoly on the Constitution, including Paul. I still like to think Paine's Rights of Man is more sacred or valuable than any charter, including the Constitution, will ever be, even though I'm not fond of natural laws.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Dankster ...

My definition of liberty was: "The right to be left alone."

As your post points out ... here's Webster's definition:


1.

a.) The condition of being free from restriction or control. (The right to be left alone.)

b.) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. (The right to be left alone.)

c.) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. (The right to be left alone.)

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. (The right to be left alone.)

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. (The right to be left alone.)


Now then, tell us again where I only have "a partial concept of what Liberty really is."

I'm beginning to believe that you are so eager to counter my points that you're not reading them. Try thinking your positions through a little more before posting, Dankster. :roll:

Vi
</IMG>
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Dankster ...

My definition of liberty was: the right to be left alone.

As your post points out ... here's Webster's definition:


1.

a.) The condition of being free from restriction or control. (The right to be left alone.)

b.) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. (The right to be left alone.)

c.) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. (The right to be left alone.)

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. (The right to be left alone.)

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. (The right to be left alone.)


Now then, tell us again where I only have a partial concept of what Liberty really is.

I'm beginning to believe that you are so eager to counter my points that you're not reading them. Try thinking your positions through a little more, Dankster. :roll:

Vi
</IMG>
Click to expand...
What it boils down to is liberty for the rich. The poor always get the shit end of the stick. This country is all about how much freedom can you buy, All you have to do to prove this is look at the court system. The rich walk and the poor get 20 to life. Three strikes for stealing a loaf of bread- life without parole. Killing your ex-wife/girlfriend, a walk. Yeah, liberty costs money in this the greatest country on the planet,~LOL~.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
What it boils down to is liberty for the rich. The poor always get the shit end of the stick. This country is all about how much freedom can you buy, All you have to do to prove this is look at the court system. The rich walk and the poor get 20 to life. Three strikes for stealing a loaf of bread- life without parole. Killing your ex-wife/girlfriend, a walk. Yeah, liberty costs money in this the greatest country on the planet,~LOL~.
Click to expand...
Yawn ...

Thanks be to God for Puccini. I find one-note operas to be quite boring. :roll:

Vi
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
Dankster ...

My definition of liberty was: "The right to be left alone."

As your post points out ... here's Webster's definition:


1.

a.) The condition of being free from restriction or control. (The right to be left alone.)

b.) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. (The right to be left alone.)

c.) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. (The right to be left alone.)

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. (The right to be left alone.)

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. (The right to be left alone.)




Now then, tell us again where I only have "a partial concept of what Liberty really is."

I'm beginning to believe that you are so eager to counter my points that you're not reading them. Try thinking your positions through a little more before posting, Dankster. :roll:

Vi
</IMG>
Click to expand...
Really? no where on the definitions does it say the right to be left alone (except where you added it), if it did we wouldn't have things called LAWS.

You read into something that isn't there.... Try again.
Please Expound on the Definition of Liberty.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Honestly Dank ... I used to think that despite your intelligence in many areas that you were very ignorant in others. Now I'm beginning to think stupidity is a better term. Every place where I added "the right to be left alone," aptly describes the meaning of the words as defined by Webster.

Is your reading comprehension deficient or something? Stoned maybe? Still jonesing for nicotine? ADD? What ... ??? :mrgreen:

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Yawn ...

Thanks be to God for Puccini. I find one-note operas to be quite boring. :roll:

Vi
Click to expand...
Yup, the truth shall set you free, well that and a few hundred thousand to a legal eagle. Funny how when I tell the truth and it kind of exposes your corrupt position you walk away with a smart ass remark. Now that you're rich you are above the frey, right. Try and remember what it was like to be poor like you are always talking shit about.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
Honestly Dank ... I used to think that despite your intelligence in many areas that you were very ignorant in others. Now I'm beginning to think stupidity is a better term. Every place where I added "the right to be left alone," aptly describes the meaning of the words as defined by Webster.

Is your reading comprehension deficient or something? Stoned maybe? Still jonesing for nicotine? ADD? What ... ??? :mrgreen:

Vi
Click to expand...
Meaning of words are what webster's is all about, if it doesn't say it in the Webster's Dictionary then it's not there.

Now as to the last part of your comment..... Do you really want to compare personal attacks?

I'm not as Ignorant or stupid as you may think, in person I'm betting I would surprise you.
But for some reason that when you do not control the topics of conversation you start with your own attacks.

Now there is no political system that is better than others as there is no belief structure that is better than anyone else's.
They are what they are.... You keep throwing Ronald Reagan out there. The Difference between Reagan and what we have today is that Reagan would try and work with what he had (democrats) and put them at ease.
He did not try to divide people. You can't expect that the country is going to go to the way you want it, that's just not going to happen and there is no saviour on the political landscape that is going to do it for you..... Not even Ron Paul. In order to accomplish that you would have to have a total cooperation of both houses of congress. No president can mandate shit, if you remember the constitution, an executive order is a constitutional act of treason.

So as far as being left alone from the government, that isn't going to happen. All your (conservative) Heroes Voted for the patriot act, the Genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
Yup, the truth shall set you free, well that and a few hundred thousand to a legal eagle. Funny how when I tell the truth and it kind of exposes your corrupt position you walk away with a smart ass remark. Now that you're rich you are above the frey, right. Try and remember what it was like to be poor like you are always talking shit about.
Click to expand...
Where's a person with a reasonable mind when ya need him?

Med ... If you can find one post of mine where I've ever "talked shit" about the poor, post it.

The fact that I've said government is inefficient, taxes too much, foists off a slave tax system on us, etc., isn't blasting the poor.

You're repeating the mantra of the socialist heads: "Against high taxes and government control over our lives ... you're against the poor!" Bull shit ... that's nothing but using the poor as a red herring in order to advance a political agenda.

Wise up old Med-Man. :blsmoke:

Vi


</IMG>
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
come on guys... we all know money can buy your way out of trouble, just look at the OJ simpson trial...

or tickets, if you dont pay for your speeding tickets you "do not pass go, do not collect x dollars" go straight to jail. or in real world you get a warrant for your arrest.

the above is just a small scale of what money can do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top