• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fall of the Republic debate / analysis

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

This is almost like work to critique this from my personal perspective. Please don’t judge my effort here harshly.

It opens up with the globe moving away to international currency which is completely correct. The economy going global is and will push the political world to organise globally. I’m not terribly interested in turning global warming into a conspiracy theory. It is a scientific theory that is very credible. I do have a fair bit of scepticism about some of the science behind it but for the most part the evidence of global warming is pretty strong with record heat levels, the oceans are warming. Determining the cause is tricky business but for lack of a better reason the burning of fossil fuels and Co2 seems to be the way the vast majority of scientists consensus. Homeland security using the boyscouts to fight terrorism sounds like early indoctrination of some youth at an overtly early age which should not be allowed. Clearly a gap that is being left by the failure of religious sentiment. Not global warming.

Tim ball is featured in the documentary and is known to have received financial benefits from big oil. He is a particularly bias source of knowledge and has been charged with this “denier” label for good reason. Tim Ball is a discredited source and has received money from oil companies. His appearance has raised a red flag.. his theories have been discredited. The people in this documentary are overly in favour of fossil fuel and arbitrarily discredit the mass of scientific research and science in general that they are professing environmentalism to control individuals lives. However the effect would never be that terrible and it is only oil companies that would be affected by research and development of alternative energy. Tim Ball is a terrible source and is a known bias personality

“Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[11]”

Friends of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friends of Science with whom Ball was associated with “There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."

The issue with the political parties having the same policies on particular issues steadfastly is something I also strongly agree with. I blame the weakening for federal powers via deregulation and strong societal ideological thinking of the American public for much of the bias towards tax cuts, privatisation etc. Anything that is collectivist is relatively Mc Arthurised* and turned into a bogyman that the extreme far right libertarian oligarchic preponderates demonise anytime someone brings it up. Case in point is socialised Medicare.

I am confused though because the root of the problem has exposed itself. Deregulation is the root cause and I see libertarianism as the trouble not the resolution. This bail out, saved foreign banks who involved themselves in libertarian unsupervised deregulatory practices and derivatives. Libertarians solution to this problem is ridiculous insisting that the banking industry fail and throwing the entire world economy to fall into depression. This would result in a set back for unregulated free market imperialism and work against libertarian philosophy in the long run. I don’t trust unregulated banks. 600 trillion in derivatives.. In actuality the derivative market has no value and is a result of deregulation of financial markets so that banks could make bookie gambles on outcomes. In this case the gamble was on the sub prime loans not failing, which was a complete fallacy, considering the home owners were sold houses they couldn’t afford, a furthering of the case for more regulatory measures. It is possible though considering the power of the banks it was a manufactured failure. It may have been extortion of the Obama administration at the outset of his ascent to the oval office, possibly.

I don’t agree that Obama is as dangerous as Bush. At least Obama is attempting to make some changes to the largely privately controlled federal parties. The right left paradigm is still legitimate I believe but societal thinking about centrist and left of center policy needs to change to have serious political effect. The money coming from the private sector and lobbying has to be ended. It is completely irresponsible how America allows it’s political parties to be bought. Look at the republicans.. slobbering all over BP and apologising and the Tea party basically doing the same thing. The democrats tried to have the derivative market regulated but the libertarian republican party denied it.

The taxation and all government is illegitimate theme is completely overblown and exaggerated. Civil rights are collectivist ironically it is the government that is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Weakening of the left right paradigm weakens the political process. In the US as well as other countries the move has gone right for to long and the end result has been economic collapse, unparalleled ecological disasters, cuts in taxation that created even greater debt. Now that the economy has collapsed, ironically because of deregulation the libertarians are expecting society to eat the whole enchilada. After having Bush spend the family fortune hand over fist and collapsing the economy the libertarians are now expecting the population suck it up and pay for it all. Even Bush was not so stupid as to dump on main street for something that had nothing to do with them. It was libertarians deregulatory ideological affinity that made the mess that wasn’t supposed to happen. Clearly free marketering libertarians unknowingly or knowingly support authoritarian oligarchy, social stratification and the hollowing out of the middle class.

I don’t fall for the claim that the markets were to fail intentionally although it wasn’t nearly the surprise it was made out to be. It was known for a few years there was going to be big problems, eventually. I myself read articles back as far as 2005 predicting what happened in 2008. It is creepy though it happened just before democrats were elected.

I find much of what Alex Jones says about government more paranoia, real collectivist mentalities paradoxically would be far less likely to involve themselves with this sort of economic world government for the rich. The US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, and it is private. I do realise the power of the Bilderberg group. The “money changers” are behind the “New world order” are not in favour of collectivism.

I dislike that Obama has watered down his intentions for the people but he may have his hands tied by the libertarian corporate elite. Libertarians political aims only harden this power.. Only collective democratic powers can change all this and it has to be done in solidarity. I am not arguing for communism, only a move away from extreme individualism/anarchy for the wealthy. I believe that they are over focused on Obama and demonize him far more then is necessary. Alex Jones philosophy causes apathy in the political process. The government is not taking more and more control over the lives of individuals.. that is the oligarchy controlling via government. What needs to happen is the house and senate start behaving in favour of the people and worry less about the wealthy. Do what needs to get done and stop all this dogmatic insistence that deregulation and microscopic government is the answer.

I did love hearing Henry Paulson stammering and tripping over himself when he was being questioned about conflict of interest. It was comical and very telling. Here you can see there is still power in government in opposition to the oligarchy’s henchmen. I find this is contrary to Alex’s Jones’s claim that the government is always against the people. I believe there is power to fight this mess in the system but society has to embrace it. They cannot delimit this ultimate power except to reduce the size and power of the people via small government that is limited in what they can do.

I do believe Obama inherited a real mess. I sincerely believe he would like to help the disadvantaged but he is stuck working in a framework he inherited on his first day as president. I imagine sometimes that after a new president is elected they bring the newly chosen president into a room in the pentagon. The lights go off and they show the president a video of JFKs last moments.. only it is from a different perspective then all the other video shown to the public and the camera is looking down the barrel of a gun, it goes off and JFKs head explodes end of film.

Sporting events.. and “tribalism” of that for the males is a perfect distraction from the real issues. I agree with the documentaries claims on media manipulation. Multiculturalism is a part of globalization it involves the import of extra labour to help keep labour cheap and inflation in check. At the same time it is a bi partisan effort which lends to globalization advocacy.

Anti gun regulation is featured in the documentary. I am of two minds on this subject. On one hand I think it is good for the people to have means to fight and remove an unjust political leadership. On the other all it really does is cause homicide in general otherwise. If the government so chose it wouldn’t matter much how many guns the population has to fight the government because the military is so advanced in comparison.

I find the bias against Obama particularly overblown. The message has not really addressed the republican mess that he has inherited. The documentary presents the democrats in a negative light. I find it is bias in favour of libertarianism but I believe this documentary is sloppy in its fault finding. To say libertarians and republicans are the protectors of liberty for the people is completely intellectually dishonest. The people need to recapture the centers of power in the US but what will come of that if the implantation of globalization (free markets and libertarian) defeats democratic empowerment of the state because there is no higher authority then a collectives elected government.(unless your talking about the federal reserve) Globally however they now have other places to prop up and use the same methods via the privatized banking industry to take advantage of the poor and underprivileged. True government of the people for the people has been completely undermined by globalization and the ultra wealthy.

EDIT : Original from thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...7-g20-good-round-up-youll-see-anywhere-3.html
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

This is almost like work to critique this from my personal perspective. Please don’t judge my effort here harshly.
This honest criticism was appreciated and unexpected, I'll try to not be too harsh.

It opens up with the globe moving away to international currency which is completely correct. The economy going global is and will push the political world to organise globally.
It could be argued that this is a manufactured situation brought upon by the central banks that are operating in virtually every country around the world.

I’m not terribly interested in turning global warming into a conspiracy theory. It is a scientific theory that is very credible. I do have a fair bit of scepticism about some of the science behind it but for the most part the evidence of global warming is pretty strong with record heat levels, the oceans are warming. Determining the cause is tricky business but for lack of a better reason the burning of fossil fuels and Co2 seems to be the way the vast majority of scientists consensus.
Look, the world used to be Pangea, yet there's been a number of ice ages as well... the climate changes. Any actual changes that humans make on the environment at least as far as CO2 is concerned is negligible at best when you consider the vastness of what creates the climate.

I would urge you to read the book written by the Club of Rome in 1991, The First Global Revolution.

You can read most of the book here ...
Internet Archive: Free Movies, Music, Books & Wayback Machine...

On page 71 you can find the quote:
“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Homeland security using the boyscouts to fight terrorism sounds like early indoctrination of some youth at an overtly early age which should not be allowed. Clearly a gap that is being left by the failure of religious sentiment.
Yes, and if you or anyone you know is in the military, it's of the utmost importance to note the actual targets these boyscouts are being trained for... namely; gun owners and returning / disgruntled veterans. Ponder that thought for a moment.

Not global warming.
Ultimately, global warming is simply a means to an end, the end is to create a carbon tax to be a funding mechanism for a world government body.

While your notes about that person are interesting, they are somewhat irrelevant, since CO2 is a gas that is REQUIRED for life on this planet, and taxing CO2 is really taxing life itself. So, EVEN IF, global warming IS man-made (I would say a negligible and unknown effect), the end of instituting a cap and trade or carbon tax WILL DO NOTHING, but line the pockets of the already wealthy on the promise that someone like Al Gore might plant a tree in some third world country one day.

The issue with the political parties having the same policies on particular issues steadfastly is something I also strongly agree with. I blame the weakening for federal powers via deregulation and strong societal ideological thinking of the American public for much of the bias towards tax cuts, privatisation etc. Anything that is collectivist is relatively Mc Arthurised* and turned into a bogyman that the extreme far right libertarian oligarchic preponderates demonise anytime someone brings it up. Case in point is socialised Medicare.
I just wish more liberals had READ the bill they were pushing for so strongly... those that did joined 'tea parties' and were labeled by the media as republican.

I am confused though because the root of the problem has exposed itself. Deregulation is the root cause and I see libertarianism as the trouble not the resolution. This bail out, saved foreign banks who involved themselves in libertarian unsupervised deregulatory practices and derivatives. Libertarians solution to this problem is ridiculous insisting that the banking industry fail and throwing the entire world economy to fall into depression. This would result in a set back for unregulated free market imperialism and work against libertarian philosophy in the long run. I don’t trust unregulated banks. 600 trillion in derivatives.. In actuality the derivative market has no value and is a result of deregulation of financial markets so that banks could make bookie gambles on outcomes. In this case the gamble was on the sub prime loans not failing, which was a complete fallacy, considering the home owners were sold houses they couldn’t afford, a furthering of the case for more regulatory measures. It is possible though considering the power of the banks it was a manufactured failure. It may have been extortion of the Obama administration at the outset of his ascent to the oval office, possibly.
This is a perfectly reasonable analysis from a mainstream perspective... you're confusing market deregulation with libertarianism however. You're right abut the derivatives, but very conservative in the estimation of 'value' of derivatives... but we all know that the derivatives aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.

It's also a fallacy to blame this on failed mortgages... with 600 trillion you could buy all the resources on the planet... maybe several planets. Point being that it's an incalculable value... Yes, from the point where the Glass-Stiegall act was repealed, it was known that this would allow for derivatives to be made, which is for all intents and purposes a form of counterfeiting. Now, it's expected that people will accept that everyone is just bankrupt because these too big to fails needed to succeed, leaving everyone else by definition too small to save.

I don’t agree that Obama is as dangerous as Bush. At least Obama is attempting to make some changes to the largely privately controlled federal parties. The right left paradigm is still legitimate I believe but societal thinking about centrist and left of center policy needs to change to have serious political effect. The money coming from the private sector and lobbying has to be ended. It is completely irresponsible how America allows it’s political parties to be bought. Look at the republicans.. slobbering all over BP and apologising and the Tea party basically doing the same thing. The democrats tried to have the derivative market regulated but the libertarian republican party denied it.
What made Bush dangerous were the policies he was pushing... and Obama promised 'change'... his idea of change was to EXPAND on what Bush was doing when everyone was 'hoping' he would change things by REPEALING these things.

The taxation
By the income tax, legally speaking, you only have to pay taxes when you 'opt in' to certain programs, like payroll deductions, it's also illegitimate because it violates your fifth amendment against self-incrimination.

and all government is illegitimate theme is completely overblown and exaggerated.
It's not 'all government is illegitimate' so much as all government that goes beyond the constitution IS no longer 'legitimate'... anymore then if I threw on a military uniform and pinned some medals to my chest that I could order soldiers around. Which is the point... in America, if you don't stand for the constitution, then you are in some form standing against it... that's harsh words, but it's been the lack of harsh words that have allowed such deterioration of our society (among a whole laundry list of other things)

Civil rights are collectivist ironically it is the government that is supposed to protect the rights of individuals.
That's about ALL the federal government is supposed to do :
- Print the money
- Protect the border
- Trade with other nations

Really... there's not all that much more...


Weakening of the left right paradigm weakens the political process.
Quite the opposite, because if we abandon the left right paradigm, we won't be blindly following party principles, we will be forced at looking into the issues and finding out where each person stands on those issues based on their track record... instead of just towing the party line.

In the US as well as other countries the move has gone right for to long and the end result has been economic collapse, unparalleled ecological disasters, cuts in taxation that created even greater debt. Now that the economy has collapsed, ironically because of deregulation the libertarians are expecting society to eat the whole enchilada. After having Bush spend the family fortune hand over fist and collapsing the economy the libertarians are now expecting the population suck it up and pay for it all. Even Bush was not so stupid as to dump on main street for something that had nothing to do with them. It was libertarians deregulatory ideological affinity that made the mess that wasn’t supposed to happen. Clearly free marketering libertarians unknowingly or knowingly support authoritarian oligarchy, social stratification and the hollowing out of the middle class.
Ok... now, I could agree with you, but your choice of words 'libertarian' clearly means something different then what I mean when I say 'libertarian'. It's the 'left-right' paradigm that's confusing the debate.... also, there's plenty of people that claim to be 'liberal' but are not, and 'republican' that are anything but... so perhaps that's a point of confusion.

It's not that libertarians support 'unregulated' free markets... but where the regulations are to ensure a fair and honest system rather then to protect and maintain monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies that make up the greater portion of our market value.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don’t fall for the claim that the markets were to fail intentionally although it wasn’t nearly the surprise it was made out to be. It was known for a few years there was going to be big problems, eventually. I myself read articles back as far as 2005 predicting what happened in 2008. It is creepy though it happened just before democrats were elected.
Yes, the writing has been on the wall for a long time... I don't think 'intentionally' like pulling the plug 'intentionally' shuts off what was plugged in... but, I do agree 'intentionally' like creating a system that you know will lead to catastrophe based on historical precedences.

I find much of what Alex Jones says about government more paranoia, real collectivist mentalities paradoxically would be far less likely to involve themselves with this sort of economic world government for the rich.
It's also a confusion of what is meant by 'communism'... the big central banks LOVE communist countries because they only need to dole out enough for the population to maintain a subsistance level, which guarantees their control into the future. "If I can create the money, I care not who makes the laws." is the saying.

The US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, and it is private. I do realise the power of the Bilderberg group. The “money changers” are behind the “New world order” are not in favour of collectivism.
The 'new world order' IS a collectivist model... Aldous Huxley gave a speech at Berkely shortly before he died where he condemned Orwell's 1984, saying that it would be much to brutal of a system, and that the world would end up much more closely to the system of Brave New World, where there would still be a police state, but it would not be necessary because : "Objection to the state of the people would be as impossible as a sheep objecting to the practice of eating mutton."

Note that BOTH of those books were VERY collectivist societies.

I dislike that Obama has watered down his intentions for the people but he may have his hands tied by the libertarian corporate elite. Libertarians political aims only harden this power.. Only collective democratic powers can change all this and it has to be done in solidarity. I am not arguing for communism, only a move away from extreme individualism/anarchy for the wealthy. I believe that they are over focused on Obama and demonize him far more then is necessary.
There's nothing wrong with people amassing a wealth for themselves... I am pro-capitalism. All that needs to be done is to actually enforce the laws already on the books... kick out those corrupt individuals in power that have been bought off and no longer represent the people, etc... The problem isn't that we need to CHANGE the laws or the constitution... we need to ENFORCE the laws that are constitutional.

Alex Jones philosophy causes apathy in the political process.
I disagree, Alex Jones like him or hate him, has a fairly devout following that spreads the messages person to person, but even without Alex Jones, the world IS waking up to this information...

The government is not taking more and more control over the lives of individuals.. that is the oligarchy controlling via government.
Which is turned into a corporate-political block, where the politicians are chosen and the elections are really just for show, since both people that make it to the 'finals' are going to do what you want. That's how I called Obama's victory about a month and a half before the elections. I saw that the big banks (too big to fails later) had invested 4:1 in Obama over McCain, in the range of 250-500k per company.

What needs to happen is the house and senate start behaving in favour of the people and worry less about the wealthy. Do what needs to get done and stop all this dogmatic insistence that deregulation and microscopic government is the answer.
It really is the answer... well, a good start at least... if we had a government that simply upheld the constitution, we'd be in a much better spot.


I did love hearing Henry Paulson stammering and tripping over himself when he was being questioned about conflict of interest. It was comical and very telling. Here you can see there is still power in government in opposition to the oligarchy’s henchmen. I find this is contrary to Alex’s Jones’s claim that the government is always against the people. I believe there is power to fight this mess in the system but society has to embrace it. They cannot delimit this ultimate power except to reduce the size and power of the people via small government that is limited in what they can do.
That's what the awakening is all about... the sad part is that there's a good number of people that won't be 'woken up' in time and will be like lemmings walking over the edge of a cliff. I heartily agree with your collectivist viewpoint... we are not drones born to serve government. I know, that's not what you're suggesting, but with proper education (not 'no child left behind education' either), and bringing back REAL family values, and the drive to rebuild this country, we could rebound and maintain our rugged industrious independence.


I do believe Obama inherited a real mess. I sincerely believe he would like to help the disadvantaged but he is stuck working in a framework he inherited on his first day as president. I imagine sometimes that after a new president is elected they bring the newly chosen president into a room in the pentagon. The lights go off and they show the president a video of JFKs last moments.. only it is from a different perspective then all the other video shown to the public and the camera is looking down the barrel of a gun, it goes off and JFKs head explodes end of film.
That video would be shown to a president before he became 'president elect'.

Sporting events.. and “tribalism” of that for the males is a perfect distraction from the real issues. I agree with the documentaries claims on media manipulation. Multiculturalism is a part of globalization it involves the import of extra labour to help keep labour cheap and inflation in check. At the same time it is a bi partisan effort which lends to globalization advocacy.
Globalization ultimately is to bring the world to a 'second world' status'... wealthy enough that you have food, cloths and a house... but little to nothing more.

Anti gun regulation is featured in the documentary. I am of two minds on this subject. On one hand I think it is good for the people to have means to fight and remove an unjust political leadership. On the other all it really does is cause homicide in general otherwise.
Yes, you have to have the means to fight back... but ultimately, if you're in a war, it doesn't matter how advanced the weapons used against you are, because their weapons can easily become your weapons if you get to the hearts and minds of the individuals using those machines.

As for homocide rates... compare places like Chicago and New York, before and after their gun bans. Look to Great Britain and Australia that have been disarmed. Compare that to places like Switzerland... where everyone has a gun.

If the government so chose it wouldn’t matter much how many guns the population has to fight the government because the military is so advanced in comparison.
Unless, the right people break rank and order the arrest of the would be tyrant... history shows that if ordered to, our soldiers will line us up all in pits and shoot us in the back of the head without hesitation. They already decided that torture wasn't 'illegal' enough to not do it... so Bush brags about ordering torture, yet the people doing the torturing are in jail... and sentenced even harsher when they show documentation that they were ordered to.

I find the bias against Obama particularly overblown. The message has not really addressed the republican mess that he has inherited. The documentary presents the democrats in a negative light. I find it is bias in favour of libertarianism but I believe this documentary is sloppy in its fault finding. To say libertarians and republicans are the protectors of liberty for the people is completely intellectually dishonest. The people need to recapture the centers of power in the US but what will come of that if the implantation of globalization (free markets and libertarian) defeats democratic empowerment of the state because there is no higher authority then a collectives elected government.(unless your talking about the federal reserve) Globally however they now have other places to prop up and use the same methods via the privatized banking industry to take advantage of the poor and underprivileged. True government of the people for the people has been completely undermined by globalization and the ultra wealthy.

EDIT : Original from thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...7-g20-good-round-up-youll-see-anywhere-3.html
The bias is not simply an 'anti-Obama' thing... Obama is just the face of the oval office, it's the whitehouse afterall that has the power, NOT the person sitting in the chair.

No, it's not as simple a matter as 'republicans / libertarians' are the saviors of the world... it's more that without being able to critically think through the issues on your own, that you will get sucked into the tribal 'party mentality' and get into the 'winner / loser' mentality... then each one gets to blame the other for everything screwing up because the leaders of both parties are actually good friends and completely corrupt to the core. Had McCain won, I guarantee the documentary would be ragging on him, and the repblican response would be that it was 'anti-republican slant'.

I assure you that what you're calling 'libertarian' is a bastardization of the term, because it's more like a crony capitalism what you call 'libertarian'.

When you said the 'democratic state'... the 'democrats' should be JUST AS FIERCELY defending of the constitution as the republicans... democrat isn't the same as democracy... which even if it was, we live in a representative republic with democratically elected representatives.

I appreciate the honest views shared from the film.. even though I disagree with some, most of the time is simply 'that's ALEX JONES' in that scared tone like that makes it debunked on the spot.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
lol.. you libertarians are going to be the death of me. Thanks for the thoughtful critique. Currently and having a fair bit of apathy over the whole debate thing. I won't be taking you up on a argument where I quote each thing I have a quip with I did not intend to have to defend that opinion on the documentary. I did expect someone would take me up on it though. So if I can bring myself around to it I will.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
lol.. you libertarians are going to be the death of me. Thanks for the thoughtful critique. Currently and having a fair bit of apathy over the whole debate thing. I won't be taking you up on a argument where I quote each thing I have a quip with I did not intend to have to defend that opinion on the documentary. I did expect someone would take me up on it though. So if I can bring myself around to it I will.
No worries, I just didn't want to completely hijack that other thread...

I suspect that the disagreements are skin deep, but where we agree are on the core points.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
No worries, I just didn't want to completely hijack that other thread...

I suspect that the disagreements are skin deep, but where we agree are on the core points.
I think we agree for the most part but I give democrats more benifit of the doubt. At least they pretend to have the greater good of society in mind.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think we agree for the most part but I give democrats more benifit of the doubt. At least they pretend to have the greater good of society in mind.
I view it much more like everybody focuses on the wings. Like a persons legs, the left takes a step, then the right takes a step, sometimes one leg will take a double or triple step, but then it goes back... all the while the people following the left leg attack the right leg for where it's going, then it's the right's turn to attack the left when it's in 'control'... and all the while, nobody ever focuses on the BODY those legs are carrying. Nobody looks at the 'bird' the wings are flying, and it's not an eagle, nor does anyone really focus on where the body is taking us all as a society.
 
Top Bottom