It's called political leverage to get a bill passed. Happens every day in DC.
What are you going to ask? If someone comes up to me I don’t know, I just want you away.
Rooster, you do know that your name represents the white supremacy.
I’m far from racist. The times I heard of big house it referred to prison. Lol
That is why I chose my name. Why did you choose your name?
I
Based on your statements, I make the following assumptions: you’ve been indoctrinated in Marxist principles (probably in a university setting); you accept the inevitability of an evolutionary process that will eventually lead to one world government; you display very limited skill at meaningful debate as you quickly resort to an ad hominem argument; you employ leftist narratives that predominantly emerged during the Hillary Clinton Campaign (hate; racism; dehumanization) that are intended to drive wedge of emotionalism between one's logic and their rational decision (Hillary Clinton was a protege' of Saul Alinsky, the author of 'Rules for Radicals'; you utilize the principles of Critical Theory (the formalized process for creating disingenuous arguments that seem on the surface to represent the truth that are intended to promote popular acceptance of socialism by either target audiences within a nation {for the purpose of engendering social conflict) and/or the general public by undermining the cohesive aspects of the culture that unify it as a nation. I could go on with this; but you get the point.
You ignore the fact that our nation's culture was influenced predominantly by its ‘majority white population’ as if this is some kind of aberration of nature. Perhaps you might examine the rest of the world and compare the relationships between the demographics of their majority populations and the cultures that exist therein. Look at China; India; African Nations: Middle Eastern; Malaysia, etc? Compare the cultures that exist in these countries with their races, ethnicities and predominant religions. This holds true even among the cultures in communities within the animal world. Nearly every nation, colony, herd, group has its own set of rules under which their populations either consent, or are forced, to coexist. Consider, every nation that has successfully survived for a significant period of time has done so based on the abilities of its population to cooperate, communicate, peacefully associate, govern and to defend the domain where it exists. If a device or a nation functions successfully, it is logical that it should be maintained so as to continue to function successfully. This is not to say that cultures or societies should not able to change over time; however, It is incumbent on those who are vested with the responsibility of ensuring the continued existence of their nation, its system of government, prosperity, peace and safety of its citizens to act to preserve the social, cultural and ethnic demographics that coalesced and enabled their nation to come into being.
The Marxist narrative that is typically presented to counter the logic and truth just stated is: "This country was established illegitimately under a system of Imperialism; achieved its prosperity with the labor of slaves and the exploitation of the natural resources of third world countries..... Drivel. Our predecessors did conquer this land during a period when the dominant nations in Europe were colonizing and exploiting peoples and extracting natural resources. However, since that time our forefathers revolted against the oppression of colonial exploitation and established a constitution under which our citizens asserted their rights (as postulated by John Locke) to self govern, to posses three natural rights (life, liberty, and to own property), and that all men are created equal with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And from Voltaire insure our citizens the freedom of speech and to express their religious beliefs. This system of government produced a nation of people which has lasted over 200 years. The society which grew along with this unique form of government placed the emphasis of government on protecting the rights of the 'Individual' citizen and in so doing provides the Individual the right and the ability to prosper. The Marxist would discard this system and offer a form of government that protects the rights of the 'Collective' compared to which the rights of the individual are insignificant. Cases in point: USSR; China; North Korea; Cambodia; Vietnam; etc. The numbers of lives lost by people who opposed these governments; became unnecessary, or inconvenient are uncountable. Ahhh, but you Marxists have now coined the phrase Democratic Socialism. This is a contradiction in terms! The enlightened person should instantly realize that under Marxism, the natural rights of the individual are, at first, attenuated and that, as all socialistic governments evolve, the rights of individuals are completely vitiated in the name of the 'public good'. This is not the proposition presented to the populaces, but it is the inevitable evolution of this system as the elite in power inevitably seek to obtain totalitarian control.
I'm afraid that I may have digressed, but I have a moral and ethical obligation to attempt to bring you back to a state where logic and reason might prevail. It is very, very difficult to break through to a person has been indoctrinated in Marxist ideology by experts in a University setting, or to one who has grown up in a home where the parents were indoctrinated under the same conditions. Anyway, now that the word home has been introduce, I will proceed.
Every nation on earth has the sovereign right to determine its form of government, defend its borders and to protect its domain, natural resources and its citizens from plunder by forces from other nations or individuals who come uninvited from other nations. The purpose and duty of every government, whether it is national, provincial, protectorate, state, municipal, or town is to provide organized systems of laws and regulations to protect the lives, property and welfare of its citizens (by force if necessary) with the consent of its citizens. Citizens also have the right to protect and defend their own lives and property as well as the sanctity of their homes. There is no essential difference. Under the U.S. Constitution, no person, or persons other than law enforcement agents acting authorized by a court ordered warrant issued under due process, may legally or rightfully invade the premises of one’s home. I ask you: what is your opinion as to the legal, ethical or moral right of any person who is neither a member your family, nor a person whom you wish to enter your home, to break and enter into your home? Our nation is an extension of our home which we have an obligation to defend if called upon. If any citizen wishes to invite another person in need into their home and to provide assistance as a gesture of charity, I applaud them; but do not tell me that I am obligated to provide for others outside my family at the expense of the safety and welfare of those in my own family: don’t tell me we as a nation are obligated to provide for the safety and welfare of people from other nations (and in this case veritable hordes) at the expense of the safety and welfare of our own citizens. If you propose otherwise, I must assume that you are ideologically determined to destroy the nation and society which has provided a safe place for you to live up to now.
Just read it again.
Please explain
SOLID FOUNDATIONAL RESPONSE, WELL DONE AMIGO
Similar threads
