The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[sealybobo]

In Europe, the notion of who controls is more of a joint affair between these big, inside investors, management and, especially in countries like Germany, the workers also have a large seat at the table. They kind of manage it together in a more cooperative, consensual way, whereas in American it is much more a shareholder-dominated board at this point.

The first corporations — way back — had social purpose

And how is that working out? All we ever hear from the left is the "European model". Well - if Europe is so great, how come none of you go live there? Greece completely collapsed under liberalism. They have experienced horrific riots, the government has shut down banks and only allowed citizens to withdrawal $70 per week from their bank accounts, etc. France is on the verge of that exact same collapse, and both Spain and France aren't too far behind France. It's a failed model. Why would you want to mirror a failed model?

You seem to forget the USA 2007 Great Recession.

And wasn't German voted best country in the world this year? Canada was 3rd? USA 4th? Do you know why? Because workers in Canada and Germany have it better than we do here in America.

I don't want to leave. I want to go back to when America was great. My mom and dad's generation. I want what the baby boomers got. I want what European workers get. Don't get defensive when your country is no longer the greatest country in the world.

 

[Norman]

Can anyone top 5 minutes?

 

[JoeNormal]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

 

[P@triot]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

Wait...what? Suddenly "implied consent" doesn't exist any more?!? Imagine that. See how that works?

Typical hypocrite liberalism. Something exists when they can twist it to their advantage. It immediately ceases to exist when it can't be exploited to their advantage. Sickening people.

 

[JoeNormal]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

Wait...what? Suddenly "implied consent" doesn't exist any more?!? Imagine that. See how that works?

Typical hypocrite liberalism. Something exists when they can twist it to their advantage. It immediately ceases to exist when it can't be exploited to their advantage. Sickening people.

If you had more charisma, I might think you were Bill O'Reilly posting incognito.

 

[P@triot]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

Wait...what? Suddenly "implied consent" doesn't exist any more?!? Imagine that. See how that works?

Typical hypocrite liberalism. Something exists when they can twist it to their advantage. It immediately ceases to exist when it can't be exploited to their advantage. Sickening people.

If you had more charisma, I might think you were Bill O'Reilly posting incognito.

Yeah...more personal attacks when your own words paint you into a corner. Typical.

 

[JoeNormal]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

Wait...what? Suddenly "implied consent" doesn't exist any more?!? Imagine that. See how that works?

Typical hypocrite liberalism. Something exists when they can twist it to their advantage. It immediately ceases to exist when it can't be exploited to their advantage. Sickening people.

If you had more charisma, I might think you were Bill O'Reilly posting incognito.

Yeah...more personal attacks when your own words paint you into a corner. Typical.

Personal attacks? I would have thought that being compared to Bill O'Reilly would be the ultimate compliment to someone like you.

 

[P@triot]

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to fuck your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".

Leave it to you to misrepresent an issue in the most absurd way possible. That's your true 'talent'.

Wait...what? Suddenly "implied consent" doesn't exist any more?!? Imagine that. See how that works?

Typical hypocrite liberalism. Something exists when they can twist it to their advantage. It immediately ceases to exist when it can't be exploited to their advantage. Sickening people.

If you had more charisma, I might think you were Bill O'Reilly posting incognito.

Yeah...more personal attacks when your own words paint you into a corner. Typical.

Personal attacks? I would have thought that being compared to Bill O'Reilly would be the ultimate compliment to someone like you.

Why? Just more evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't know me. You don't who I respect. And you certainly don't know what you're talking about. But God love you...that certainly doesn't stop you, does it?

 

[bripat9643]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

 

[JoeNormal]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

 

[Norman]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet! (And as for you, apparently you can't write even as an adult).

Third, your pro coercion stance implies that you are in fact a rapist. It has been implied!

 

[JoeNormal]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

 

[Norman]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

 

[JoeNormal]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

 

[Norman]

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

 

[JoeNormal]

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

 

[Norman]

Fist of all... "THEN"???

Second, pretty sure that you can't be born into a contract. That's actually admission that it doesn't exist, since I am very confident the unborn LITERALLY can't sign a contract. They can't even read yet!

Third, your pro coercion stance implied that you are in fact a rapist.

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

 

[JoeNormal]

Of all the people who could get burned in a grammar war, you're close to the top.

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

 

[Norman]

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

This is why liberals are always so full of hypocrisy. No principles...

 

[JoeNormal]

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

This is why liberals are always so full of hypocrisy. No principles...

People in glass houses...