PROPOSAL ALL SHOULD BE OF SUPPORTING

IVAN CHESNOKOV

IVAN CHESNOKOV

HERO OF SOCIALIST LABOR
IVAN AGREE 100% RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR USE AGAINST STATE THAT GIVES RIGHTS TO PEOPLES. IS OF CRAZY TO ARGUE OTHERWISE.

G4jS3Si.jpg
 
States have no authority to ”give rights” people are endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator the God Of Nature.
 
it is true that under the old Soviet constitution there was no concept of protection from the state......the constitution defined what rights the individual had to be protected from other individuals by the state......Ivan learned his lessons in the Soviet schools very well......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is true that under the old Soviet constitution there was no concept of protection from the state......the constitution defined what rights the individual had to be protected from other individuals by the state......Ivan learned his lessons in the Soviet schools very well......
Click to expand...

The Union was an good idea, originally. It's when leadership decided Russia was too underdeveloped to be socialist that things went haywire - They pitifully surmised that the country needed to be lead to industrial status.

Chomsky outlined this in one of his later lectures. I'm sure you can find it on the net somewhere.
 
Shy Guy said:
The Union was an good idea, originally. It's when leadership decided Russia was too underdeveloped to be socialist that things went haywire - They pitifully surmised that the country needed to be lead to industrial status.

Chomsky outlined this in one of his later lectures. I'm sure you can find it on the net somewhere.
Click to expand...

Sure it isn't your ideology that is ducked up. People like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao just didnt get it right.

If only you anti freedom types could just find the right person to bring your utopian wet dreams to fruition without fucking it up
 
WinterBorn said:
While I believe you are trolling, you hit on the biggest problem so many have with actual freedom.

A free society is not safe, it is not fair, and any attempts to make it safe or fair will invariably involved compromising freedoms.
Click to expand...

So it’s freedom that’s to be hated because it’s not safe or fair? Wow! And here all this time I thought and was taught slavery was what was not safe or fair. Silly me!!!
 
Classic Liberal said:
So it’s freedom that’s to be hated because it’s not safe or fair? Wow! And here all this time I thought and was taught slavery was what was not safe or fair. Silly me!!!
Click to expand...

Did I say it should be hated? No, I simply pointed out that a free society is neither safe nor fair. Do you have an issue with that claim? If so, state it.
 
WinterBorn said:
Did I say it should be hated? No, I simply pointed out that a free society is neither safe nor fair. Do you have an issue with that claim? If so, state it.
Click to expand...

Since you haven’t seemed to notice the earth has always been a dangerous place to live, especially where there is little to no freedom.

Fairness/equality is in the eye of the beholder and so very often an abstract observation and often based on prejudice and or jealousy. Humans are not all equal! We’re not all equally pretty, or equally smart, or equally humorous, or equally pleasant, or equally ambitious, or equally industrious, or equally foolish.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect its citizens one from another, states from states and the nation in general from foreign attacks and otherwise leave the people free and that’s because government is made up of people as fallible, prejudice, ignorant, stupid, lazy and good or evil as the national body in general. BIG government is a BIG fuck up!!!
 
Classic Liberal said:
Since you haven’t seemed to notice the earth has always been a dangerous place to live, especially where there is little to no freedom.

Fairness/equality is in the eye of the beholder and so very often an abstract observation and often based on prejudice and or jealousy. Humans are not all equal! We’re not all equally pretty, or equally smart, or equally humorous, or equally pleasant, or equally ambitious, or equally industrious, or equally foolish.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect its citizens one from another, states from states and the nation in general from foreign attacks and otherwise leave the people free and that’s because government is made up of people as fallible, prejudice, ignorant, stupid, lazy and good or evil as the national body in general. BIG government is a BIG fuck up!!!
Click to expand...

And I am still waiting for you to contradict what I said.

Yes, a free society is not the only dangerous way to live. No, fairness and equality are not easily defined.
 
I Love America said:
Sure it isn't your ideology that is ducked up. People like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao just didnt get it right.

If only you anti freedom types could just find the right person to bring your utopian wet dreams to fruition without fucking it up
Click to expand...
Problem being that most of the time the people who start revolutions don't end up running them and ideologists make poor leaders.
 
IVAN CHESNOKOV said:
IVAN AGREE 100% RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR USE AGAINST STATE THAT GIVES RIGHTS TO PEOPLES. IS OF CRAZY TO ARGUE OTHERWISE.

G4jS3Si.jpg
Click to expand...


Right...and if obscene, profane and/or violent imagery does have an effect on people, we've got to restrict their access to such imagery, and if such imagery does have an effect on people and leads people to kill another with a gun, then by GOD we've got to do away with people's FIRST amendment rights, but not their SECOND.

Supposed "constitutionalists" so worried about the 2nd amendment while taking part in assaults on the 1st.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Right...and if obscene, profane and/or violent imagery does have an effect on people, we've got to restrict their access to such imagery, and if such imagery does have an effect on people and leads people to kill another with a gun, then by GOD we've got to do away with people's FIRST amendment rights, but not their SECOND.

Supposed "constitutionalists" so worried about the 2nd amendment while taking part in assaults on the 1st.
Click to expand...
You are aware that it's just as often that democrats are worried about "profane images" as republicans are. Smoking in movies, biased representation, making sure there's the politically correct number of minorities in every film... Both sides are dumping propaganda on our lawn and there aren't enough shovels in the world to clear the shit.
 
Disillusioned said:
You are aware that it's just as often that democrats are worried about "profane images" as republicans are. Smoking in movies, biased representation, making sure there's the politically correct number of minorities in every film... Both sides are dumping propaganda on our lawn and there aren't enough shovels in the world to clear the shit.
Click to expand...


I have yet to hear someone make the argument that removing smoking in movies led to the shooting deaths of 5.

Time and time again people try and claim violence in movies and video games is what drives so many to violence in real life...which is just crazy.

But back to the point...it is Conservatives trying to equate violent images in movies and video games with increased violence by people who view them.

They have no problem with attempting to place "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st amendment, but don't want anyone making any kind of modification whatsoever to the amendment that came AFTER the 1st.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I have yet to hear someone make the argument that removing smoking in movies led to the shooting deaths of 5.

Time and time again people try and claim violence in movies and video games is what drives so many to violence in real life...which is just crazy.

But back to the point...it is Conservatives trying to equate violent images in movies and video games with increased violence by people who view them.

They have no problem with attempting to place "reasonable restrictions" on the 1st amendment, but don't want anyone making any kind of modification whatsoever to the amendment that came AFTER the 1st.
Click to expand...
Your argument comes down to, "But they do it worse."
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Right...and if obscene, profane and/or violent imagery does have an effect on people, we've got to restrict their access to such imagery, and if such imagery does have an effect on people and leads people to kill another with a gun, then by GOD we've got to do away with people's FIRST amendment rights, but not their SECOND.

Supposed "constitutionalists" so worried about the 2nd amendment while taking part in assaults on the 1st.
Click to expand...

Ummm Ivan is from Russia Zap. And apparently anti-gun (like yourself) as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top