Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
dear, it isn't me that hasn't' a clue or a Cause.dear, if you are asking if prefer Order to Chaos; then you must realize why i believe in our form of socialism.
too stupid as always:
1) the issue between Plato and Aristotle, and between Democrats and Republicans is freedom versus govt, not order v. chaos. Still over your illiterate head?
2) in Econ 101 class one, day one, hour one they teach that we have an mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Did you ever think of going to school so you would not seem so illiterate?
This is socialism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist Number 2
, dear. Socialism starts with a social Contract such the Constitution for our Body politic as Persons in our Republic.
The corporation now has a monopolic position.
too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
You misunderstand the concept as usual and project extremely well.
The corporation now has a monopolic position.
too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
50 companies all competing for the same customer is the liberal conception of "monopoly."
50 ? Have you taken a look at the banking system recently ?The corporation now has a monopolic position.
too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
50 companies all competing for the same customer is the liberal conception of "monopoly."
yes Marx has brainwashed the liberal to assume capitalism leads to monopoly so they continue to parrot the ancient wisdom no matter how vast the contrary evidence is.
50 ? Have you taken a look at the banking system recently ?
.
It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
50 ? Have you taken a look at the banking system recently ?The corporation now has a monopolic position.
too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
50 companies all competing for the same customer is the liberal conception of "monopoly."
yes Marx has brainwashed the liberal to assume capitalism leads to monopoly so they continue to parrot the ancient wisdom no matter how vast the contrary evidence is.
How many banks and how many insurance companies hold the 80% of the market.
And please , remember any money printed by the fed goes first to the bankers.
50 ? Have you taken a look at the banking system recently ?The corporation now has a monopolic position.
too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
50 companies all competing for the same customer is the liberal conception of "monopoly."
yes Marx has brainwashed the liberal to assume capitalism leads to monopoly so they continue to parrot the ancient wisdom no matter how vast the contrary evidence is.
How many banks and how many insurance companies hold the 80% of the market.
And please , remember any money printed by the fed goes first to the bankers.
One bank with 80% of the market still wouldn't be a monopoly.
50 ? Have you taken a look at the banking system recently ?too stupid used cars as an example of monopoly even when half the companies are on the verge of bankruptcy owning the extreme global competition have the best quality and lowest prices in the world just to survive.
Can we conclude anything other than that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
50 companies all competing for the same customer is the liberal conception of "monopoly."
yes Marx has brainwashed the liberal to assume capitalism leads to monopoly so they continue to parrot the ancient wisdom no matter how vast the contrary evidence is.
How many banks and how many insurance companies hold the 80% of the market.
And please , remember any money printed by the fed goes first to the bankers.
One bank with 80% of the market still wouldn't be a monopoly.
and today there are huge huge banks all over the world in many many different businesses so its pretty absurd to even think in terms of market share since it cant even be measured in any meaningful way.
Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.
This addresses the rest of your myth:Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.
This addresses the rest of your myth:Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.
Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.
This addresses the rest of your myth:Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.
A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.
Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.
This addresses the rest of your myth:Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.
A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:It is only your understanding that is a myth; our social Contract establishes our form of Government.
A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.
Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.
This addresses the rest of your myth:Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.
Is 1% a monopoly to a marxist liberal??
That's crap!Is 1% a monopoly to a marxist liberal??
liberal culturecitizen bites the dust yet again
