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.
a) Do you believe government should have authority that individuals on their own (no government or society) would have?.a) What makes me a communist- specifically.
b) See (a) above as evidence that you have no principals
Do I believe in a Constitutional Democratically elected government? Why yes I do.
Do I believe that a Free economy with some regulation of business's is the best economic system we know of so far?
Why yes I do.
So what are the principals of Communism?
Among others:
That the working class — or "proletariat" — must rise up against the capitalist owners, or "bourgeoisie," according to the ideals of communism, and institute a new society with no private property, no economic classes and no profits.
In contrast, communists state that capitalist economic and political systems must be completely overthrown through revolution.
So in answer to b) you are either ignorant about what Communism is- or you are lying because you disagree with me- i.e. you have no principals.
a) Do you believe government should have authority that individuals on their own (no government or society) would have?.a) What makes me a communist- specifically.
b) See (a) above as evidence that you have no principals
Do I believe in a Constitutional Democratically elected government? Why yes I do.
You mean like the governments the Union imposed on the Confederate states after the war?.
The problem is that you seem to think two wrongs make a right.LOL- not surprised that our favorite slavery loving asshole responded to defend your slave states.
Quite a few of the die hard Lincoln opponents are also Confederate fanboys. They are not openly defending slavery- they just defend the 'rights' of States to pass laws to own slaves.
What was the greater abuse of governmental power- the greater expression of the denial of freedom and liberty- Lincoln's executive actions while in the midst of a war?
Or the actions of the Rebel states- and indeed of all of the slave states- in perpetuating the loss of freedom and liberty to millions of Americans?
I am certainly not defending the actions of slave states...AT ALL, for many reasons, the most important being that each slave state WHOLLY FAILED in discharging sole duty and purpose of government---to facilitate the individual's peaceful pursuit of happiness---all individuals. From a personal stand point, many like my gr. grandfather were disadvantaged to extreme poverty by the practice of slavery.
So, when you really get down to the heart of it, many innocent people suffered because of slavery, but many more died being compelled by their government to defend it to their detriment.
I know it's hard for communists to believe that objective, principled people exist in the world. You don't see a Goddamn one in the collectivist hive groups pushing for unbridled totalitarian government authority.
Syriusly admitted he has no principles. He believes the end justifies the means, even if it's mass murder.
And, because he is too cowardly, lacks introspect, and lack consistent principles, I will answer that question for him.Syriusly admitted he has no principles. He believes the end justifies the means, even if it's mass murder.
Run away, run away....just like you did from your 'principals'Should government have authority granted to it by individuals that those individuals should not have in a stateless/non-government form of existence?
Can individuals consent to be governed, and bestow on the government they form, authority to act in a fashion the individuals did not and should not have on their own?
That is THE relevant question that demonstrates all.
TICK FUCKING TOCK.
Do you have a reason for not answering the question?I certainly have.
Let us review shall we?
a) you called me a commie- and yourself a 'principled person'
b) I challenged you to prove I was a 'commie'
c) You responded by asking a question.
You either have a reason for calling me a commie- or you are lying.
Personally I think you are doing both.
I think you do.
Commie
And, because he is too cowardly, lacks introspect, and lack consistent principles, I will answer that question for him.Syriusly admitted he has no principles. He believes the end justifies the means, even if it's mass murder.
Syriusly: "Yes, I do believe that government should have authority to take action that individuals would not or should not have on their own in a stateless/non-government existence. Thus, I share the principles that both caused slavery to be tolerated and defended. And, therefore, I am no better than the slave owners or their government, and I am decidedly someone who is unequivocally open to the concept espoused by statist/authoritarians who tragically brought us the 120 million people murdering ideology that a ACT like I don't secretly admire and covertly support."
Is that about right?
War does justify the end of slavery. Too bad that wasn't the real purpose for Lincoln. His real purpose was government without consent.Brippat admitted that he has no principals and loves slavery. He believes that nothing justifies the end of slavery and the loss of that slave property in the South.
You still have not answer the question that I asked.Of course not- because oddly enough- you think a 'commie' believes in Capitalism and a a Constitutional Democratically elected government.
Do you also think that if someone says they believe in God that they are an Atheist?
I certainly have.
Let us review shall we?
a) you called me a commie- and yourself a 'principled person'
b) I challenged you to prove I was a 'commie'
c) You responded by asking a question.
You either have a reason for calling me a commie- or you are lying.
Personally I think you are doing both.
I'm sorry, what question were you answering for me? It got lost in the shuffle of you not answering mine.Since Bootney refuses to answer it I will answer for him:
Bootney: Yes, I admit I have no principals and I use the term 'Commie' when I lie about anyone I disagree with and share the lack of principals with those that sought to leave the Union in order to defend their slave property.
Yeah I think I got that right.
War does justify the end of slavery. Too bad that wasn't the real purpose for Lincoln. His real purpose was government without consent.Brippat admitted that he has no principals and loves slavery. He believes that nothing justifies the end of slavery and the loss of that slave property in the South.
You can't put aside your emotions regarding slavery long enough to see the wrongs committed on the other side. You really do support slavery, just not slavery based on race.
Am I wrong?
See post #444. Read the whole thing this time.Still waiting for you to explain why you believe I am a communist.....still waiting....still waiting...
I have repeatedly, on this very thread, NOT defended the slave-owning South.Sorry 'tards- I got to run- I will leave you to your circle jerk defending the slave owning South and calling everyone who disagrees with you a 'commie'.
The problem is that you seem to think two wrongs make a right.LOL- not surprised that our favorite slavery loving asshole responded to defend your slave states.
Quite a few of the die hard Lincoln opponents are also Confederate fanboys. They are not openly defending slavery- they just defend the 'rights' of States to pass laws to own slaves.
What was the greater abuse of governmental power- the greater expression of the denial of freedom and liberty- Lincoln's executive actions while in the midst of a war?
Or the actions of the Rebel states- and indeed of all of the slave states- in perpetuating the loss of freedom and liberty to millions of Americans?
I am certainly not defending the actions of slave states...AT ALL, for many reasons, the most important being that each slave state WHOLLY FAILED in discharging sole duty and purpose of government---to facilitate the individual's peaceful pursuit of happiness---all individuals. From a personal stand point, many like my gr. grandfather were disadvantaged to extreme poverty by the practice of slavery.
So, when you really get down to the heart of it, many innocent people suffered because of slavery, but many more died being compelled by their government to defend it to their detriment.
I know it's hard for communists to believe that objective, principled people exist in the world. You don't see a Goddamn one in the collectivist hive groups pushing for unbridled totalitarian government authority.
Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion
You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.
The war began because Slave owning states feared the end of slavery. While there were other issues too- slavery was at the heart of the reasons why the slave owning states attempted to secede. It is evident in their statements at the time- both before and after the election of Abraham Lincoln. The North did not enter the war because of slavery- but the South certainly did.
The war began when the rebels began firing on troops of the United States Army.
While Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- and campaigned on preventing the expansion of slavery- he was very clear that he would accept slavery in order to preserve the Union.
When the slave owning rebel states made it clear that they were going to proceed- Lincoln realized that freeing the slaves became a strategic decision that happened to mirror his own convictions.
Correct.
True mastery of a subject is the ability to boil it down to simple, powerful points. That you can't go beyond you've read more history books than I've seen (which you obviously have no way of knowing) and your response to consent of the governed and Locke was you have philosophy and political science degrees says you are NOT a master.
I have masters degrees in business and computer science, and my job is to make difficult concepts simple for management, the business and IT teams to understand, and I'm good at it. If I responded with your ridiculous crap about my degrees or that I've read books, I'd be escorted to the door
You missed the first lesson.
Lincoln is the one who didn't follow the Constitution, you fucking douchebag. Since when did leftwingers ever give a damn about complying with it?a) Do you believe government should have authority that individuals on their own (no government or society) would have?.a) What makes me a communist- specifically.
b) See (a) above as evidence that you have no principals
Do I believe in a Constitutional Democratically elected government? Why yes I do.
You mean like the governments the Union imposed on the Confederate states after the war?.
Yeah- you are still pissed off that Alabama and Texas have to follow the Constitution and are part of the United States and not their own slave supporting Constitutions.
You're the one who just admitted that the end justifies the means.You still have not answer the question that I asked.Of course not- because oddly enough- you think a 'commie' believes in Capitalism and a a Constitutional Democratically elected government.
Do you also think that if someone says they believe in God that they are an Atheist?
I certainly have.
Let us review shall we?
a) you called me a commie- and yourself a 'principled person'
b) I challenged you to prove I was a 'commie'
c) You responded by asking a question.
You either have a reason for calling me a commie- or you are lying.
Personally I think you are doing both.
Just pointing out that besides Bootney's lack of principals.....
View attachment 197436
The lincoln cult will never admit the war was wrong because their whole welfare state empire is based on it.War does justify the end of slavery. Too bad that wasn't the real purpose for Lincoln. His real purpose was government without consent.Brippat admitted that he has no principals and loves slavery. He believes that nothing justifies the end of slavery and the loss of that slave property in the South.
You can't put aside your emotions regarding slavery long enough to see the wrongs committed on the other side. You really do support slavery, just not slavery based on race.
Am I wrong?
Drones like Syriusly deify the state, so they see nothing wrong with your description of what they believe.And, because he is too cowardly, lacks introspect, and lack consistent principles, I will answer that question for him.Syriusly admitted he has no principles. He believes the end justifies the means, even if it's mass murder.
Syriusly: "Yes, I do believe that government should have authority to take action that individuals would not or should not have on their own in a stateless/non-government existence. Thus, I share the principles that both caused slavery to be tolerated and defended. And, therefore, I am no better than the slave owners or their government, and I am decidedly someone who is unequivocally open to the concept espoused by statist/authoritarians who tragically brought us the 120 million people murdering ideology that a ACT like I don't secretly admire and covertly support."
Is that about right?
