Double Standards---a Country with a Freedom of Expression?

myp said:

Take it easy you two, we don't a fight or flame war starting out of this. Maybe it is best to just drop this for the time being. And Chuck, there are no winners and losers in an unmoderated debate driven simply by the quest for knowledge and exchange of ideas.

Click to expand...

When one debater loses it, calls names and declares he is walking off-stage merely because the other asked a directly related question, I think that can be the subject of comment. Calling myself the winner beats many less polite alternatives. Especially when the thread topic is freedom of expression.

chuck schmidt said:

When one debater loses it, calls names and declares he is walking off-stage merely because the other asked a directly related question, I think that can be the subject of comment. Calling myself the winner beats many less polite alternatives. Especially when the thread topic is freedom of expression.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the other debater is just frustrated or has something else going on that makes him not want to debate? Besides, declaring yourself as the winner only hurts your ethos and in turn your point. If you really think you are the "winner" why not keep it to yourself?- when people read the posts, they will probably decide who they agree with any way.

chuck schmidt said:

I (and the rest of the world) disagree. America is a democratic republic. But then you anarchists have a world all your own with its own definitions? Careful you don't walk too close to the edge and fall off.

Click to expand...

Ow, burned.

Even if it were seen as a democratic republic (people that study the US system will argue it's a plutocracy), it would still be a "liberal democracy".

This isn't an "anarchist" definition, it's an academic definition.

David said:

Democracy - Rule by the people. Not elected gov't, the PEOPLE.

Click to expand...

Yah. Thanks, comrade.

myp said:

Perhaps the other debater is just frustrated or has something else going on that makes him not want to debate? Besides, declaring yourself as the winner only hurts your ethos and in turn your point. If you really think you are the "winner" why not keep it to yourself?- when people read the posts, they will probably decide who they agree with any way.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between a debate and what that, between David and Chuck, became. A debate is an exchanging of views, dissemination, constructive criticism, mutual understanding and modification of opinions as necessary. This has been an exchanging of insults and what frankly appears to be forced misunderstanding.

:giggle:

Dirk said:

There is a difference between a debate and what that, between David and Chuck, became. A debate is an exchanging of views, dissemination, constructive criticism, mutual understanding and modification of opinions as necessary. This has been an exchanging of insults and what frankly appears to be forced misunderstanding.

:giggle:

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire exchange between them, but only the last few posts when I replied. Now, having read the entire thing, I agree with you. Perhaps it will be best to just close this thread before it escalates into something worse.

I will lock the thread.

edit: After a good point from another member on our boards, I have decided to give this debate a second shot as the debate could be good. Just remember the rules guys. Also, don't make personal attacks and don't take anything personally. We should be fine if everyone can follow that.

"Forced misunderstanding?"

Since the thread has re-opened, and the last page was filled with flame posts I will get the thread back on track personally.

The Forbidden Truth is that its a rigged system. First, 2 humans out of millions of humans are selected as candidates and carefully screened in such a way that they conform to all the major underlying principals of society. Only those who already conform to these principals can become members of a major political party, and only members of these parties can become one of the two candidates. Then, you are facistly instructed that you are only allowed to vote for one of these two candidates.

No politician can reach this stage of becoming a candidate unless he believes in the family unit, wears a suit, refrains from public violence, demonises criminals, promises a form of legal and societally sponsered mass murder such as war, abortion, death penalty, child brutalization etc and then also claims that he himself as well as all law-abiding citizen-slaves are moral and have freedom. Of course, you are all immoral and have no legitimate freedom.

Since BOTH the candidates only vary in cosmetic ways, since BOTH represent and will continue the current cultural and societal systems already in place, it simply makes no difference who is voted for from a Forbidden Truth perspective.

Seer Travis Truman said:

Since BOTH the candidates only vary in cosmetic ways, since BOTH represent and will continue the current cultural and societal systems already in place, it simply makes no difference who is voted for from a Forbidden Truth perspective.

Click to expand...

One answer is a third national political party. In the US both present parties act as a unit in dragging society further to a conservative ethic, that ethic being whatever is their implicit consensus. As they get more powerful their ethic becomes more conservative because the first concern of power is to protect itself. A third party must differentiate itself. Although it could, and in 1930's Germany did, pull everybody further to the right, most historians see that as an historical anomaly. Hitler got elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and even he had to name his party National "Socialist" to appeal to the masses before he did his about-face. In Canada the 3rd party has kept the other two from travelling too far right by always offering something to the common man. That forces the others to do the same to survive. The radical left never becomes a threat to the national security or economy because it (in Canada, anyway) has never been elected as a national government. It wants to be elected, but in effect its purpose is to keep the others honest in representing people, not wealth.

chuck schmidt said:

One answer is a third national political party.

Click to expand...

How ridiculous! That is in no way an answer. The fact is that there are millions of citizen-slaves in most countries. Not 3. To restrict that number to 20, 000 is fascist. To restrict it to 200 is fascist. To restrict it to 3 is fascist.

The other problem is that if there was a 3 party-system, the third party would also be simply representatives of the current society.

In the US both present parties act as a unit in dragging society further to a conservative ethic, that ethic being whatever is their implicit consensus. As they get more powerful their ethic becomes more conservative because the first concern of power is to protect itself.

Click to expand...

All governments and parties are conservative and fascist dictators. They just use very slightly cosmetically different tactics.

A third party must differentiate itself. Although it could, and in 1930's Germany did, pull everybody further to the right, most historians see that as an historical anomaly.

Click to expand...

The "right" and "left" are lie-based and illegitimate constructs that are use to pretend that these things represent different societal systems.

Hitler got elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, and even he had to name his party National "Socialist" to appeal to the masses before he did his about-face.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Hitlers "government" was exactly the same basic operational structure as all others. There is only one system of society and control in existence -fascist dictatorships.

Look, your "right" and "left" delusion has no Truth-based legitimacy. All modes of government, all parties are all simply societal representatives of society.

Seer Travis Truman said:

How ridiculous! That is in no way an answer. The fact is that there are millions of citizen-slaves in most countries.

Click to expand...

Name them?

The other problem is that if there was a 3 party-system, the third party would also be simply representatives of the current society.

Click to expand...

People in a government are part of the current society? Eeeeeeeeeeeeuwwww, how droll?

All governments and parties are conservative and fascist dictators. They just use very slightly cosmetically different tactics.

Click to expand...

If you advocate sole individual control that makes you your own government. Are you fascist and conservative?

:giggle:

chuck schmidt said:

Reply

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman
How ridiculous! That is in no way an answer. The fact is that there are millions of citizen-slaves in most countries.

Click to expand...

CS : Name them?

Click to expand...

Name them? Don't you realize that the population of your society is more than three (3)? To answer that, yes. You know, you are just trying desperately to change the focus away from your ridiculous blunder and the Truth.

The fact is that a 3-candidate system is not really better than the current 2-candidate system. You are being fascistly compelled to choose out of only 2 or 3 humans are president when there are millions to choose from.

Quote STT:
The other problem is that if there was a 3 party-system, the third party would also be simply representatives of the current society.

Click to expand...

CS : People in a government are part of the current society? Eeeeeeeeeeeeuwwww, how droll?

Click to expand...

I did not say "part". I said representatives. They are just the creation of their society. All political candidates uphold the same primary belief/derangement systems. Therefore, you can only vote for the exact same primary system no matter which candidate you select on the card.

Quote STT:
All governments and parties are conservative and fascist dictators. They just use very slightly cosmetically different tactics.

Click to expand...

If you advocate sole individual control that makes you your own government. Are you fascist and conservative?

Click to expand...

That reply does not even address the issue raised. I thought it was obvious that I am not a political party, not a fascist, not a "conservative", nor do I support any of the deranged constructs of human society.