The WEIRD political hypocrisy of this board.

[Harry Dresden]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

No liberals thought that the right wing in the U.S. would turn as extreme as it has. The idea of a Trump presidency existed only in a comedy show named 'The Simpsons'. It is an utter absurdity.

The left hasn't changed much, true Republicans like the Bushs, McCain and Romney seem a whole lot more reasonable than the wack job that's our current President.

The fact that all the Trumpbots now despise the Bushs, McCain and Romney shows how far off the deep end they've gone. There is something seriously wrong with these people!

There is something seriously wrong with these people
the diehards on both sides?....you are right....

 

[rightwinger]

What gives our government legitimacy is We the People have elected them to represent us. We formed a more perfect union through a Constitution and until that Constitution is repealed, we will abide by it

An NO.......I do not watch propaganda videos from any side.
You are a big girl, if you have a point to make....make it

As I have already pointed out to you in previous posts, NONE of us signed that document, and even if that generation signed that document, it would only apply to that generation, which means they do not have the the legitimacy to rule us. If it's by voting that they are legitimized, then every agorist in the 'nation' would no longer be ruled by them, however if they choose not to pay taxes, they would still be kidnapped and held against their will. So, no, you have yet to provide an argument as to how they are legitimite rulers. This was also already covered in my citations, which you refused to read because you fear knowledge. Get out of your box and educate yourself, you ignorant, condescending fool.

As a child anarchist, you are free to disavow everything in the Constitution. That leaves you two options
You can gather your anarchist friends and overthrow our government and replace it with your own twisted version

You can leave the US and find yourself an anarchist haven. May I suggest Somalia?

Telling me to leave is only proof that despite your arguments being thoroughly debunked, you still have learned nothing, and still can't come up with any arguments for the legitimacy of the state. Not only this, but only very specific kinds of Anarchists, and people who consider themselves Anarchists despite just advocating for a different state, advocate for violent revolution. The government will be innovated out of existence or will be driven out of the economy through counter-economics whether you like it or not. All states are bound to collapse:

Somalia is ruled by multiple warring states, you only consider them Anarchist for the following reasons:

1: You're incapable of saying anything that the official narrative has not signaled to you.
2: You're unfathomably ignorant and refuse to educate yourself.

Face it Punk’n..... You are an anchor baby entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Signing the constitution is not required
But I got good news for you anarchy girl. As a citizen, you have the right to petition government, elect fellow anarchists and change that constitution you hate so much

The way that anyone is brought into any binding agreement is through signature or personal mark. Requiring no mark simply means that anyone can wave any piece of paper at you and claim that you agreed to it. This is, of course, also not an argument for legitimacy of the state.

I'd also like to point out that the "rights and privileges" here are violated just as often as any other State. Since the Supreme Court, headed by John Marshall, decided that "commerce clause" existed despite not actually existing, and that everything was commerce, all rights were subject to regulation, and the Constitution may as well have no longer existed. The Constitution is not only NOT a binding document due to lack of signature, mark, and consent of the people which the State claims to rule, but the government does not uphold it even if it was.

By your logic, I can declare myself "Government" and you'd be forced to do anything I say, for fear of one of my hired thugs putting a bullet in your head, in which case the Mob and the Mafia are both Governments. I'd also like to point out that such practice is coercion.

As I pointed out earlier, even if this were a true democracy, the chance of your vote mattering s below 10% in most state, AND since that's not the case, what we want does not matter, since the Electoral college ultimately decides who wins elections. On top of that, the document which I cited earlier(That you chose not to read, because it doesn't support your narrative) mentions that government arbitrators are chosen, not elected. Your response to my previous posts goes to show that you're ignoring my points because you can't refute them.

Your signature is your elected representative
Like I said, you have birthright citizenship.
You can try to overthrow your government, change it or leave
Somalia is beautiful this time of year

 

[Olde Europe]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Methinks, you should look up the term "principle" for a clue, because the term quite obviously doesn't mean what you think it does.

Moreover, realizing on the occasion of baby Bush's unreason that it was actually possible to disagree and reason with GHWB, and that baby Bush's un-reason wasn't as far progressed as the Trumpy's daily defecation on reason, doesn't mean liberals suddenly start to love, admire, or support either Bushes, even by comparison.

Finally, in case you are deluded enough not to notice: If you talk about "the left" (or "the right", for that matter), some qualifiers are in order, since the members both these groups aren't actually all equal and the same. Omitting these qualifiers just means you are babbling bullshit, unaware of, and unconcerned with, the truth. That makes it rather hard to take you seriously.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

As I have already pointed out to you in previous posts, NONE of us signed that document, and even if that generation signed that document, it would only apply to that generation, which means they do not have the the legitimacy to rule us. If it's by voting that they are legitimized, then every agorist in the 'nation' would no longer be ruled by them, however if they choose not to pay taxes, they would still be kidnapped and held against their will. So, no, you have yet to provide an argument as to how they are legitimite rulers. This was also already covered in my citations, which you refused to read because you fear knowledge. Get out of your box and educate yourself, you ignorant, condescending fool.

As a child anarchist, you are free to disavow everything in the Constitution. That leaves you two options
You can gather your anarchist friends and overthrow our government and replace it with your own twisted version

You can leave the US and find yourself an anarchist haven. May I suggest Somalia?

Telling me to leave is only proof that despite your arguments being thoroughly debunked, you still have learned nothing, and still can't come up with any arguments for the legitimacy of the state. Not only this, but only very specific kinds of Anarchists, and people who consider themselves Anarchists despite just advocating for a different state, advocate for violent revolution. The government will be innovated out of existence or will be driven out of the economy through counter-economics whether you like it or not. All states are bound to collapse:

Somalia is ruled by multiple warring states, you only consider them Anarchist for the following reasons:

1: You're incapable of saying anything that the official narrative has not signaled to you.
2: You're unfathomably ignorant and refuse to educate yourself.

Face it Punk’n..... You are an anchor baby entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Signing the constitution is not required
But I got good news for you anarchy girl. As a citizen, you have the right to petition government, elect fellow anarchists and change that constitution you hate so much

The way that anyone is brought into any binding agreement is through signature or personal mark. Requiring no mark simply means that anyone can wave any piece of paper at you and claim that you agreed to it. This is, of course, also not an argument for legitimacy of the state.

I'd also like to point out that the "rights and privileges" here are violated just as often as any other State. Since the Supreme Court, headed by John Marshall, decided that "commerce clause" existed despite not actually existing, and that everything was commerce, all rights were subject to regulation, and the Constitution may as well have no longer existed. The Constitution is not only NOT a binding document due to lack of signature, mark, and consent of the people which the State claims to rule, but the government does not uphold it even if it was.

By your logic, I can declare myself "Government" and you'd be forced to do anything I say, for fear of one of my hired thugs putting a bullet in your head, in which case the Mob and the Mafia are both Governments. I'd also like to point out that such practice is coercion.

As I pointed out earlier, even if this were a true democracy, the chance of your vote mattering s below 10% in most state, AND since that's not the case, what we want does not matter, since the Electoral college ultimately decides who wins elections. On top of that, the document which I cited earlier(That you chose not to read, because it doesn't support your narrative) mentions that government arbitrators are chosen, not elected. Your response to my previous posts goes to show that you're ignoring my points because you can't refute them.

Your signature is your elected representative
Like I said, you have birthright citizenship.
You can try to overthrow your government, change it or leave
Somalia is beautiful this time of year

I never agreed to have any individual represent me, they represent only their own interests. Those in government can be called Legislatures AT BEST, since none of them have any legitimacy for reasons I've already explained. Furthermore, that would be a forgery of my signature, due to never agreeing to be represented by that individual.

I already explained that the government selects 'election winners' through the Electoral college or regardless of it. Voting accomplishes nothing, a point you have yet to refute, due to the fact that you're only repeating yourself, because you have no arguments of your own.

Now I'm convinced you're not actually reading my posts, since I already refuted your claim regarding Somalia. Multiple warring States is not Anarchy.

 

[Mac1958]

There is something seriously wrong with these people
the diehards on both sides?....you are right....

Infected by the same bug.
.

 

[buttercup]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Not everyone on the right loved him. I have always disliked George Bush, both father and son. Why, because they’re globalists… Not conservatives or patriots. But it is funny, as you said, that many Dems now seem to like him. Maybe because they’re globalists too?

(I didn’t read the whole thread btw)

 

[Wry Catcher]

The far left started to like the Bush's again when Jeb and the rest of the clan opposed Trump. Suddenly the Bush's were "transformed" from scum of the earth...to moderate voices of reason!

W finally came to his senses and began to act without the advice and consent of VP Cheney and the neo cons during the last year of so of his second term. Since his retirement he's proved to be more like his dad, than like Cheney.

 

[buttercup]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

This is FAR too global and encompassing a statement.
I never liked Bush 1 or 2. Many Conservatives like me saw through him and got it that they were elitist / Globalists

Exactly!

 

[sealybobo]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Show us the time when republicans went from hating to liking a democrat please.

We don’t love mueller or comey or McCain or Romney. They’re the opposite of blue dog democrats. We’re just glad they stop your bad legislation..

 

[Olde Europe]

W finally came to his senses and began to act without the advice and consent of VP Cheney and the neo cons during the last year of so of his second term. Since his retirement he's proved to be more like his dad, than like Cheney.

Remember when, in 2008, baby Bush sent Paulson to Congress with an ultimatum and something like a three-paragraph text for an appropriation of $700bn to use pretty much as they saw fit, in effect filling the banksters' coffers without so much as the beginnings of a plan?

Yes, he seemed to have somewhat sidelined Cheney and ditched Rumsfeld in 2006, but still, "came to his senses" is a bit of a stretch, no?

 

[whitehall]

It's characteristic of a flawed personal trait when you try to use inane generalities to try to make a political point. For some reason the crazy radical left chooses to use the terms "love" and "hate" when it comes to politics but it's only an extension of their own insecure emotional approach. It may be true that democrats actually hate the current President but that's a glitch in their personality and probably an indication of their less than stellar education. Republicans never loved nor hated the Bush family. At times they held their noses and reminded themselves how bad it could have been if Al Gore won the election but it has nothing to do with love and hate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

W finally came to his senses and began to act without the advice and consent of VP Cheney and the neo cons during the last year of so of his second term. Since his retirement he's proved to be more like his dad, than like Cheney.

Remember when, in 2008, baby Bush sent Paulson to Congress with an ultimatum and something like a three-paragraph text for an appropriation of $700bn to use pretty much as they saw fit, in effect filling the banksters' coffers without so much as the beginnings of a plan?

Yes, he seemed to have somewhat sidelined Cheney and ditched Rumsfeld in 2006, but still, "came to his senses" is a bit of a stretch, no?

Meh, Obama would have done the same thing. As would have any president .The bailouts prevented a depression, maybe globally.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, We the People decide and Yes, our votes do matter
Thousands of politicians were sent packing in the last election

We have a superior democracy to what our founders envisioned. People have more freedom, more of a voice, more liberty

Our nation and the Government that runs it has evolved and we are all better for it

You clearly didn't listen to the video, or my argument. I pointed out that the Constitution holds no power over the government, nor does it give the government any legitimacy if it did.

You also completely ignored that the electoral college exists, they're never under any obligation to listen to the people, they can easily just decide on any other choice. Even if they are bound by your decision, here are the chances of your vote being decisive by state:

Even ignoring all of the aforementioned, you completely neglected to explain what gives the government legitimacy, and how anyone consented to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Furthermore, there's evidence that presidents are promoted from within the government, regardless of anything claimed to be the political process: Five Star Trust Origins - FBI Redacted Report

Even ignoring all of the above, how do we know how many votes were placed on which thing? the government counts the votes they can fudge the numbers as much as they like.

You ask what gives the government legitimacy? That’s easy. The military gives the federal government legitimacy and the police force gives State governments legitimacy.

That sounds like an admission that the government is ruling through force and coercion, and is therefor inherently evil.

That’s a nice little spin but not honest. The government runs on LAWS created on officials who are elected by the people and ORDER kept by the police military and our courts . They make rules and punish those who break the rules. So yes there is force but that doesn’t make it evil

Laws are simply the government granting itself permission to do any specific thing, and as our consent is not necessary, nothing is actually stopping them from doing this. As an example, Nazi Germany granted itself permission to murder anyone they didn't agree with.

Elections don't matter, the elections are held by secret ballot, and nobody consents to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers in the first place. Government is simply might makes right, and elections only grant the illusion of choice. Best case scenario, he majority is just deciding which tyrant the minority will be ruled by.

Sorry chica but that’s just not true. Representatives are elected by the people. There are many problems with our campaign and electoral process, I’ll give you that, but our democracy it’s far from the picture you paint.

You are right about our laws granting permission to do whatever we want, how that’s how any system is governed and that’s why we had legal slavery and other despicable laws many years ago.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The far left started to like the Bush's again when Jeb and the rest of the clan opposed Trump. Suddenly the Bush's were "transformed" from scum of the earth...to moderate voices of reason!

The far left liked Jeb because he was the sacrificial lamb as were McCain and Romney. When has the Left not referred to McCain, Romney, and Bush as Racist or tried to make anything they said racist?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You clearly didn't listen to the video, or my argument. I pointed out that the Constitution holds no power over the government, nor does it give the government any legitimacy if it did.

You also completely ignored that the electoral college exists, they're never under any obligation to listen to the people, they can easily just decide on any other choice. Even if they are bound by your decision, here are the chances of your vote being decisive by state:

Even ignoring all of the aforementioned, you completely neglected to explain what gives the government legitimacy, and how anyone consented to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Furthermore, there's evidence that presidents are promoted from within the government, regardless of anything claimed to be the political process: Five Star Trust Origins - FBI Redacted Report

Even ignoring all of the above, how do we know how many votes were placed on which thing? the government counts the votes they can fudge the numbers as much as they like.

You ask what gives the government legitimacy? That’s easy. The military gives the federal government legitimacy and the police force gives State governments legitimacy.

That sounds like an admission that the government is ruling through force and coercion, and is therefor inherently evil.

That’s a nice little spin but not honest. The government runs on LAWS created on officials who are elected by the people and ORDER kept by the police military and our courts . They make rules and punish those who break the rules. So yes there is force but that doesn’t make it evil

Laws are simply the government granting itself permission to do any specific thing, and as our consent is not necessary, nothing is actually stopping them from doing this. As an example, Nazi Germany granted itself permission to murder anyone they didn't agree with.

Elections don't matter, the elections are held by secret ballot, and nobody consents to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers in the first place. Government is simply might makes right, and elections only grant the illusion of choice. Best case scenario, he majority is just deciding which tyrant the minority will be ruled by.

Sorry chica but that’s just not true. Representatives are elected by the people. There are many problems with our campaign and electoral process, I’ll give you that, but our democracy it’s far from the picture you paint.

You are right about our laws granting permission to do whatever we want, how that’s how any system is governed and that’s why we had legal slavery and other despicable laws many years ago.

Again, no, they do not represent everyone's interests. If you're lucky, you end up with one which matches your interests 1%. Regardless of whether that's the case, I and many others never consented to their "representation", and the mere fact that OTHER PEOPLE chose that person for "us" does not mean that they represent "us". A majority deciding that they do does not change that fact.

Telling me that laws allow things is not an argument that it's just or that it should stay that way.

 

[Slade3200]

The wild card that Trump has brought into the arena are the people who are angry and bitter at our government and politicians from both parties. Trump is a big messy Fuck You to all those people and his base loves it. It actually makes sense if you think about it. The unfortunate part is it seems these people care more about the “Fuck You” than promoting a healthy and productive state of affairs.

so....supporting those sworn to annihilate us is "healthy and productive"? (Obama gives Billions to Iran and a free pass on nuclear inspections)

The Obama Administration backs radical Islamist Morsi in Eqypt. Expedites the shipment of advanced US military tech for his use.

GEEEZ...the "healthy & productive" state of affairs you mention MUST be intended for the enemies of the US.

I listen to how you describe Obama’s foreign policy and all I hear is somebody who has no clue what they are talking about. Sounds like you get your news from conservative radio and Republican talking points.

Learn how to give fair descriptions of policy matters and perhaps we can have a fair discussion.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There is something seriously wrong with these people
the diehards on both sides?....you are right....

Infected by the same bug.
.

yet not one of them would ever admit that....

 

[Slade3200]

You ask what gives the government legitimacy? That’s easy. The military gives the federal government legitimacy and the police force gives State governments legitimacy.

That sounds like an admission that the government is ruling through force and coercion, and is therefor inherently evil.

That’s a nice little spin but not honest. The government runs on LAWS created on officials who are elected by the people and ORDER kept by the police military and our courts . They make rules and punish those who break the rules. So yes there is force but that doesn’t make it evil

Laws are simply the government granting itself permission to do any specific thing, and as our consent is not necessary, nothing is actually stopping them from doing this. As an example, Nazi Germany granted itself permission to murder anyone they didn't agree with.

Elections don't matter, the elections are held by secret ballot, and nobody consents to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers in the first place. Government is simply might makes right, and elections only grant the illusion of choice. Best case scenario, he majority is just deciding which tyrant the minority will be ruled by.

Sorry chica but that’s just not true. Representatives are elected by the people. There are many problems with our campaign and electoral process, I’ll give you that, but our democracy it’s far from the picture you paint.

You are right about our laws granting permission to do whatever we want, how that’s how any system is governed and that’s why we had legal slavery and other despicable laws many years ago.

Again, no, they do not represent everyone's interests. If you're lucky, you end up with one which matches your interests 1%. Regardless of whether that's the case, I and many others never consented to their "representation", and the mere fact that OTHER PEOPLE chose that person for "us" does not mean that they represent "us". A majority deciding that they do does not change that fact.

Telling me that laws allow things is not an argument that it's just or that it should stay that way.

It’s impossible to have a person or government for that matter that represents everybody. How do you propose a fair system to work?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That sounds like an admission that the government is ruling through force and coercion, and is therefor inherently evil.

That’s a nice little spin but not honest. The government runs on LAWS created on officials who are elected by the people and ORDER kept by the police military and our courts . They make rules and punish those who break the rules. So yes there is force but that doesn’t make it evil

Laws are simply the government granting itself permission to do any specific thing, and as our consent is not necessary, nothing is actually stopping them from doing this. As an example, Nazi Germany granted itself permission to murder anyone they didn't agree with.

Elections don't matter, the elections are held by secret ballot, and nobody consents to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers in the first place. Government is simply might makes right, and elections only grant the illusion of choice. Best case scenario, he majority is just deciding which tyrant the minority will be ruled by.

Sorry chica but that’s just not true. Representatives are elected by the people. There are many problems with our campaign and electoral process, I’ll give you that, but our democracy it’s far from the picture you paint.

You are right about our laws granting permission to do whatever we want, how that’s how any system is governed and that’s why we had legal slavery and other despicable laws many years ago.

Again, no, they do not represent everyone's interests. If you're lucky, you end up with one which matches your interests 1%. Regardless of whether that's the case, I and many others never consented to their "representation", and the mere fact that OTHER PEOPLE chose that person for "us" does not mean that they represent "us". A majority deciding that they do does not change that fact.

Telling me that laws allow things is not an argument that it's just or that it should stay that way.

It’s impossible to have a person or government for that matter that represents everybody. How do you propose a fair system to work?

NOW you're getting it. Or probably not. The answer is no government, because the only person who can represent you is yourself, and everyone consents to what they want. If there's a demand for something, people pay for it, and everyone can defend themselves. We also don't have an organization of liars, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers waging wars that only serve their own interests.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a nice little spin but not honest. The government runs on LAWS created on officials who are elected by the people and ORDER kept by the police military and our courts . They make rules and punish those who break the rules. So yes there is force but that doesn’t make it evil

Laws are simply the government granting itself permission to do any specific thing, and as our consent is not necessary, nothing is actually stopping them from doing this. As an example, Nazi Germany granted itself permission to murder anyone they didn't agree with.

Elections don't matter, the elections are held by secret ballot, and nobody consents to being ruled by these robbers, murderers, and kidnappers in the first place. Government is simply might makes right, and elections only grant the illusion of choice. Best case scenario, he majority is just deciding which tyrant the minority will be ruled by.

Sorry chica but that’s just not true. Representatives are elected by the people. There are many problems with our campaign and electoral process, I’ll give you that, but our democracy it’s far from the picture you paint.

You are right about our laws granting permission to do whatever we want, how that’s how any system is governed and that’s why we had legal slavery and other despicable laws many years ago.

Again, no, they do not represent everyone's interests. If you're lucky, you end up with one which matches your interests 1%. Regardless of whether that's the case, I and many others never consented to their "representation", and the mere fact that OTHER PEOPLE chose that person for "us" does not mean that they represent "us". A majority deciding that they do does not change that fact.

Telling me that laws allow things is not an argument that it's just or that it should stay that way.

It’s impossible to have a person or government for that matter that represents everybody. How do you propose a fair system to work?

NOW you're getting it. Or probably not. The answer is no government, because the only person who can represent you is yourself, and everyone consents to what they want. If there's a demand for something, people pay for it, and everyone can defend themselves. We also don't have an organization of liars, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers waging wars that only serve their own interests.

Oh now I get it... you’re an anarchist. That makes sense. Unfortunately your system is an impossibility in a country like ours. Go find a tribe in the rainforest somewhere and you might have better luck, although they likely will have a leader as well.