Socialism Wan Again!

[PoliticalChic]

OK....before the complaints about 'misspelling'....

....a vocabulary lesson: 'wan'
Adjective
(of a person's complexion or appearance) Pale and giving the impression of illness or exhaustion.
(of light) Pale; weak: "the wan dawn light".
Synonyms
pale - pallid - sallow - bloodless - dim - faint




1. "British democracy would receive "a shot in the arm" if the UK left the European Union, Boris Johnson [Mayor of London] has said.

2. Voters would feel they had regained control over their own destiny if Britain became fully independent from Brussels,...

3. The Prime Minister has promised to hold talks to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership and then put a new deal to the British people in a referendum after the next election.

4. The public would welcome a British exit because people would feel they had won back control over their own lives from Brussels, the Mayor claimed.

5. "If we are honest, I think, democratically, it would be a shot in the arm because people would suddenly feel, yes, we are running our own destiny again, our politics is entirely independent, British electors can choose the people who are taking decisions that affect their lives.

6. "There are some pro European pessimists who say, you have to, in Europe, simply sign up to every single thing that anyone in the EU suggests.

You sign every treaty, you sign everything - there is no alternative.

"I think they are completely wrong," Mr Cameron said."
Boris Johnson: leaving Europe a shot in the arm for democracy - Telegraph



WHAT????

Ya' mean that there is actually some sort of resistance to a huge, unelected body that feeds and clothes everyone....as long as they obey orders?




7. And, in a related note:

In his book “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,” Judge Bork tells this tale of the American Bar Association’s 2000 meeting in London, which included attendance of four of our Supreme Court Justices.

A London barrister accused the U.S. Supreme Court of “turning its back on the Continent,” complaining that the justices “rarely cite the decisions of European courts.” Of course, many American lawyers began effusively apologizing. But Justice Kennedy “did not succumb to this combination of insolent foreign browbeating and pusillanimous American response.”

Kennedy proclaimed that if US courts cede authority to remote foreign courts “there is a risk of losing the allegiance of the people.”





Perhaps there is hope for a world not content to groveling......

Sovereignty may survive....

 

[germanguy]

Hi - back again...

This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU.

1. The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before.
It´s member states agreed by contracts to cooperate in certain fields and to create institutions for specific purposes.
So you have intergovernmental agreements and supranationnal institutions. It does not have what is called in German "Kompetenzkompetenz". This means, that the EU can not by itself swift or change responsabilities and tasks within the union, as the federal level in the U.S. or Germany might do.

2. Once you have agreed to become a member of the union, you have agreed to certain rules. Also, as several times the treaties have been changed or altered, this was done with the agreement of all members.
Also, as the EU is coordinating customs, trade, fishery, consumers rights etc., common standards are needed.
As an example, let us look on consumer´s rights. 27 member states have or had different policies regarding consumers rights. If every citizen of the union has the right to -at least - basic common standards, you have to find these. This is the task of the European Comission. In most cases the output is bureaucratic gobbledegook. But if you look closer, you can see, that german authorities are not able anymore to prevent the import of, let´s say Meltese toys, because certain security standards in Germany are not met.

To make the whole construct work, all member states give up sovereignty in certain specific fields. Undemocratic? Nope, as this is done by law within the member states. These are passed by elected parliaments.

Agreed, that from this point onwards things become sometimes boring and therefore unsexy. Notwithstanding the EU is a huge success. Free trade, travelling without controls, free exchange of labour etc.

3. If Britain decides to leave the EU, it will be a big loss. Not only economically, but for the Union itself.
British politicians never explained the EU to it´s citizens and most Brits I know always felt uneasy about it, without being able to specifically name the problem.
Same here in Germany, but for us it is obviously making more sense.

I can not foresee if the Brits will leave the Union or not. I can only tell, that theye should not.
If we Europeans want to have a common future, we should not separate us from each other. The last 6 decades have been a huge economic and political success.
Yes there are flaws and problems, but they can be solved.

Neither Britain nor Germany nor France or Denmark can shape their future as full independent nations anymore. Independence means, that a state can prevent what it does not want. This is over since 1945 and more so since other nations became more powerful.
We all need each other.

Regards
The Germanguy

 

[Euroconservativ]

We all need each other.

The European Central Bank, and thus the monetary sovereignty of 15 nations, is settled in Frankfurt.

As you know, the ECB is the only major central bank in the world not allowed to buy government debt directly. But the ECB is allowed to help private banks. Do you remember the 500 billion euro ECB plan in late 2011? It was mostly used to clean the balance sheets of german, dutch, etc banks from southern debt. In other words, southern banks were forced to buy toxic debt that they didn´t buy in the first place; which led to additional credit crunch in southern Europe.

So this European Union is telling us that irresponsible governments and states have to pay a high price for it (even hurting millions of innocent individuals and businesses); but irresponsible northern banks and their shareholders will not pay any price. Just the opposite: the get the life savings of many people from southern Europe.

The Eurozone crisis is the only debt crisis where irresponsible lenders are almost portrayed as victims. It can only be explained by ethnic prejudices: you know, those dark-skinned lazy southerners


Italy is the perfect example of what is wrong with this Eurozone and European Union:

- Italy is a EU net payer. They pay 3 to 4 net billion euro to Brussels each year. They don´t get a net cent from Germany.
- Italy is paying 10% of the bailouts of Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Cyprus and Spain... while they borrow money from the market at 4 or 5% interest. Completely outrageous!
- Italy is running the highest primary budget surplus in Europe: +3% of GDP. Primary budget=difference between revenues and expenses excluding debt interests.
- And they have to read the racist PIGS bullshit every day.

Not surprisingly, 60-70% of italians and spaniards have become euroskeptics

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh these people who can't even spell 'won' corekly!

 

[there4eyeM]

Kidding aside, this playing the double game that corporations are global but nations, regulations and labor are local works great - for the corporations. If we don't want control on the grand scale, we have to control those who would control us on a grand scale - the mega-international-corporations.

If we want to conserve our identities, customs and rights, it has to be done locally. If we are too liberal towards the spoiled children that run huge enterprises, they will abuse the privilege as all children do.

 

[Toro]

Why does Germany keep losing to Italy in soccer?

 

[Dot Com]

Hi - back again...

This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU.

1. The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before.
It´s member states agreed by contracts to cooperate in certain fields and to create institutions for specific purposes.
So you have intergovernmental agreements and supranationnal institutions. It does not have what is called in German "Kompetenzkompetenz". This means, that the EU can not by itself swift or change responsabilities and tasks within the union, as the federal level in the U.S. or Germany might do.

2. Once you have agreed to become a member of the union, you have agreed to certain rules. Also, as several times the treaties have been changed or altered, this was done with the agreement of all members.
Also, as the EU is coordinating customs, trade, fishery, consumers rights etc., common standards are needed.
As an example, let us look on consumer´s rights. 27 member states have or had different policies regarding consumers rights. If every citizen of the union has the right to -at least - basic common standards, you have to find these. This is the task of the European Comission. In most cases the output is bureaucratic gobbledegook. But if you look closer, you can see, that german authorities are not able anymore to prevent the import of, let´s say Meltese toys, because certain security standards in Germany are not met.

To make the whole construct work, all member states give up sovereignty in certain specific fields. Undemocratic? Nope, as this is done by law within the member states. These are passed by elected parliaments.

Agreed, that from this point onwards things become sometimes boring and therefore unsexy. Notwithstanding the EU is a huge success. Free trade, travelling without controls, free exchange of labour etc.

3. If Britain decides to leave the EU, it will be a big loss. Not only economically, but for the Union itself.
British politicians never explained the EU to it´s citizens and most Brits I know always felt uneasy about it, without being able to specifically name the problem.
Same here in Germany, but for us it is obviously making more sense.

I can not foresee if the Brits will leave the Union or not. I can only tell, that theye should not.
If we Europeans want to have a common future, we should not separate us from each other. The last 6 decades have been a huge economic and political success.
Yes there are flaws and problems, but they can be solved.

Neither Britain nor Germany nor France or Denmark can shape their future as full independent nations anymore. Independence means, that a state can prevent what it does not want. This is over since 1945 and more so since other nations became more powerful.
We all need each other.

Regards
The Germanguy

Thank you for your insight & proving that this is YET another conservative threadFAIL

 

[PoliticalChic]

Kidding aside, this playing the double game that corporations are global but nations, regulations and labor are local works great - for the corporations. If we don't want control on the grand scale, we have to control those who would control us on a grand scale - the mega-international-corporations.

If we want to conserve our identities, customs and rights, it has to be done locally. If we are too liberal towards the spoiled children that run huge enterprises, they will abuse the privilege as all children do.

Why must I explain things to you as one would a child.....

..oh, now I remember.

Corporations are neither evil nor created on some distant planet. They are owned by individuals who may leave the job or sell their participation, stocks, at any time.

An example:
“Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


An intelligent person would process the above, and alter their view.
Then, there's you.


Always amazed at how thoroughly immersed you are in Leftist propaganda.

 

[editec]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hi - back again...

This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU.

1. The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before.
It´s member states agreed by contracts to cooperate in certain fields and to create institutions for specific purposes.
So you have intergovernmental agreements and supranationnal institutions. It does not have what is called in German "Kompetenzkompetenz". This means, that the EU can not by itself swift or change responsabilities and tasks within the union, as the federal level in the U.S. or Germany might do.

2. Once you have agreed to become a member of the union, you have agreed to certain rules. Also, as several times the treaties have been changed or altered, this was done with the agreement of all members.
Also, as the EU is coordinating customs, trade, fishery, consumers rights etc., common standards are needed.
As an example, let us look on consumer´s rights. 27 member states have or had different policies regarding consumers rights. If every citizen of the union has the right to -at least - basic common standards, you have to find these. This is the task of the European Comission. In most cases the output is bureaucratic gobbledegook. But if you look closer, you can see, that german authorities are not able anymore to prevent the import of, let´s say Meltese toys, because certain security standards in Germany are not met.

To make the whole construct work, all member states give up sovereignty in certain specific fields. Undemocratic? Nope, as this is done by law within the member states. These are passed by elected parliaments.

Agreed, that from this point onwards things become sometimes boring and therefore unsexy. Notwithstanding the EU is a huge success. Free trade, travelling without controls, free exchange of labour etc.

3. If Britain decides to leave the EU, it will be a big loss. Not only economically, but for the Union itself.
British politicians never explained the EU to it´s citizens and most Brits I know always felt uneasy about it, without being able to specifically name the problem.
Same here in Germany, but for us it is obviously making more sense.

I can not foresee if the Brits will leave the Union or not. I can only tell, that theye should not.
If we Europeans want to have a common future, we should not separate us from each other. The last 6 decades have been a huge economic and political success.
Yes there are flaws and problems, but they can be solved.

Neither Britain nor Germany nor France or Denmark can shape their future as full independent nations anymore. Independence means, that a state can prevent what it does not want. This is over since 1945 and more so since other nations became more powerful.
We all need each other.

Regards
The Germanguy

1. "This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU."
Gee....and here I thought Germans were educated...

Read again: the source is the UK Telegraph.

Did you know that the UK is part of Europe?
See what you've learned?

2. "The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before."

The EU is a totalitarian dream, run by unelected bureaucrats. Just what the American Liberals/Progressives yearn for....a great big 'daddy,' ready to cuddle you from birth to death.

"One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant."
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.


So, what have we learned?

That the EU has everything but freedom and self-determination for its members, and...

...that some German guy knows zip about the EU.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hi - back again...

This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU.

1. The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before.
It´s member states agreed by contracts to cooperate in certain fields and to create institutions for specific purposes.
So you have intergovernmental agreements and supranationnal institutions. It does not have what is called in German "Kompetenzkompetenz". This means, that the EU can not by itself swift or change responsabilities and tasks within the union, as the federal level in the U.S. or Germany might do.

2. Once you have agreed to become a member of the union, you have agreed to certain rules. Also, as several times the treaties have been changed or altered, this was done with the agreement of all members.
Also, as the EU is coordinating customs, trade, fishery, consumers rights etc., common standards are needed.
As an example, let us look on consumer´s rights. 27 member states have or had different policies regarding consumers rights. If every citizen of the union has the right to -at least - basic common standards, you have to find these. This is the task of the European Comission. In most cases the output is bureaucratic gobbledegook. But if you look closer, you can see, that german authorities are not able anymore to prevent the import of, let´s say Meltese toys, because certain security standards in Germany are not met.

To make the whole construct work, all member states give up sovereignty in certain specific fields. Undemocratic? Nope, as this is done by law within the member states. These are passed by elected parliaments.

Agreed, that from this point onwards things become sometimes boring and therefore unsexy. Notwithstanding the EU is a huge success. Free trade, travelling without controls, free exchange of labour etc.

3. If Britain decides to leave the EU, it will be a big loss. Not only economically, but for the Union itself.
British politicians never explained the EU to it´s citizens and most Brits I know always felt uneasy about it, without being able to specifically name the problem.
Same here in Germany, but for us it is obviously making more sense.

I can not foresee if the Brits will leave the Union or not. I can only tell, that theye should not.
If we Europeans want to have a common future, we should not separate us from each other. The last 6 decades have been a huge economic and political success.
Yes there are flaws and problems, but they can be solved.

Neither Britain nor Germany nor France or Denmark can shape their future as full independent nations anymore. Independence means, that a state can prevent what it does not want. This is over since 1945 and more so since other nations became more powerful.
We all need each other.

Regards
The Germanguy

Thank you for your insight & proving that this is YET another conservative threadFAIL

As usual, once you choose a side....it is self-evident that that is the failing side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

Heaven forbid.


'... fate will be decided by international organizations.'
'...can't we all just get along...'

'no more sovereignty.... the best for all of us....

...the collective over the individual....

...march lock-step like iron filings in a magnetic field.....




One would hope that you had learned something from history....
....but it seems that that is not the case.



One more try?
'“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

 

[Sallow]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

Sad..but true.

The Citizen's United case solidified the hold big corporate entities have on this nation.

 

[Sallow]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

Heaven forbid.


'... fate will be decided by international organizations.'
'...can't we all just get along...'

'no more sovereignty.... the best for all of us....

...the collective over the individual....

...march lock-step like iron filings in a magnetic field.....




One would hope that you had learned something from history....
....but it seems that that is not the case.



One more try?
'“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

This is something you and your ilk are working toward. The dissolution of a Democratic Representative government and one controlled by the wealthy and corporate interests.

 

[editec]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

Heaven forbid.

I quite agree with that sentiment.

'... fate will be decided by international organizations.'
'...can't we all just get along...'

'no more sovereignty.... the best for all of us....

...the collective over the individual....

...march lock-step like iron filings in a magnetic field.....

Sadly true

One would hope that you had learned something from history....
....but it seems that that is not the case.

Yeah, like you are going to lecture me about history

One more try?
'“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

You appear to be somewhat confused, PC.

You apparently think that the messenger is responsible for the message.

If I told you a hurricane was coming, would you also them assume that I am happy about that inclement weather?

I ask because that is CLEARLY what you just did in the case of this thread.

Per usual when people confuse the messenger for the message, I'll suggest that you respond to what I write rather than some strawman cdelusion you must have about who you imagine I am.

 

[kiwiman127]

Hi - back again...

This post is utter nonsense and reflects, that most Americans know zip about the EU.

1. The EU is neither a state or a federation or a union. It is something, which did not exist before.
It´s member states agreed by contracts to cooperate in certain fields and to create institutions for specific purposes.
So you have intergovernmental agreements and supranationnal institutions. It does not have what is called in German "Kompetenzkompetenz". This means, that the EU can not by itself swift or change responsabilities and tasks within the union, as the federal level in the U.S. or Germany might do.

2. Once you have agreed to become a member of the union, you have agreed to certain rules. Also, as several times the treaties have been changed or altered, this was done with the agreement of all members.
Also, as the EU is coordinating customs, trade, fishery, consumers rights etc., common standards are needed.
As an example, let us look on consumer´s rights. 27 member states have or had different policies regarding consumers rights. If every citizen of the union has the right to -at least - basic common standards, you have to find these. This is the task of the European Comission. In most cases the output is bureaucratic gobbledegook. But if you look closer, you can see, that german authorities are not able anymore to prevent the import of, let´s say Meltese toys, because certain security standards in Germany are not met.

To make the whole construct work, all member states give up sovereignty in certain specific fields. Undemocratic? Nope, as this is done by law within the member states. These are passed by elected parliaments.

Agreed, that from this point onwards things become sometimes boring and therefore unsexy. Notwithstanding the EU is a huge success. Free trade, travelling without controls, free exchange of labour etc.

3. If Britain decides to leave the EU, it will be a big loss. Not only economically, but for the Union itself.
British politicians never explained the EU to it´s citizens and most Brits I know always felt uneasy about it, without being able to specifically name the problem.
Same here in Germany, but for us it is obviously making more sense.

I can not foresee if the Brits will leave the Union or not. I can only tell, that theye should not.
If we Europeans want to have a common future, we should not separate us from each other. The last 6 decades have been a huge economic and political success.
Yes there are flaws and problems, but they can be solved.

Neither Britain nor Germany nor France or Denmark can shape their future as full independent nations anymore. Independence means, that a state can prevent what it does not want. This is over since 1945 and more so since other nations became more powerful.
We all need each other.

Regards
The Germanguy

Thank you for your insight & proving that this is YET another conservative threadFAIL

As usual, once you choose a side....it is self-evident that that is the failing side.

PC, you always choose one side, always. There is a word for you,,,,hypocrite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This CENTURY will be the time in human history when NATIONS cease to be the primary players in GEO politics.

I believe that we will continue to have nations, but their wings will be clipped by the corporations that they are indebted to.

Nations will have about as much authority (or less) than the STATES have in this nation today.

They will perhaps have authority over local issues, but their fate will be decided by international organizations.

I rather doubt that this trend of the erosion of national power is going to sslow down.

In fact, I think the 2007 BANKSTERS MELTDOWN is already speeding up that process.

Heaven forbid.


'... fate will be decided by international organizations.'
'...can't we all just get along...'

'no more sovereignty.... the best for all of us....

...the collective over the individual....

...march lock-step like iron filings in a magnetic field.....




One would hope that you had learned something from history....
....but it seems that that is not the case.



One more try?
'“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

This is something you and your ilk are working toward. The dissolution of a Democratic Representative government and one controlled by the wealthy and corporate interests.

I can always count on you to take the Leftist lies as truth.

Do you carry a card stating "Reliable Democrat Voter"?


Who supports the global governance/ end of sovereignty United Nations?
The Left or the Right?


1. As far back as 1976, via the UN Conference on Human Settlements, at Vancouver, they advanced the first formal incursion into national sovereignties through land use. "Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice."
The Vancouver Action Plan. D. Land - A/CONF.70/15 Chapter II - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements


2. The Left, child-like in beliefs that motivate every totalitarian regime, has decided that human beings, seeming to resist said changes, are the enemy. “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit

a.” Maurice Strong is an admitted socialist. His sister was a Marxist. He thinks you and yours have eaten too much, used too much and now must pay. Of course like every elite socialist, that just means you, not him, or his fellow elitist.” Maurice Strong- Man Behind Agenda 21 ? Part 2 | Soldier For Liberty



Blew you out of the water, didn't I.


Just as I did yesterday, when I challenged you to answer those questions.....


This is getting to be a habit.

 

[Ravi]

Why does PC hate pale people?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thank you for your insight & proving that this is YET another conservative threadFAIL

As usual, once you choose a side....it is self-evident that that is the failing side.

PC, you always choose one side, always. There is a word for you,,,,hypocrite.

It seems I spend half my time educating the kindergarten.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective


Clearly, that doesn't apply to me.



How many languages do you speak?
Why isn't English one of 'em?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why does PC hate pale people?

OMG!

Last week some were claiming it was dark folks!!!


My peeps, .....next week???



Where is Ms. Truthie when I need her??