At Their Word

[Lao Tse]

Take the globalists at their word. Globalists leaders feel no special loyalty to the nations they rule. Their allegiance is to corporations and the world bank. They openly tell us they don't care about us, but the international gdp. Why aren't we booting them out on their sellout asses?

 

[Damocles]

Take the globalists at their word. Globalists leaders feel no special loyalty to the nations they rule. Their allegiance is to corporations and the world bank. They openly tell us they don't care about us, but the international gdp. Why aren't we booting them out on their sellout asses?

Because most americans have picked their team, and regardless of how much they are not fulfilling what they say they will they will vote their team.

These are the people who say, "Go ahead! Throw away your vote!" when you speak of third parties. And "My party's platform is best for America so I'll vote for them regardless of them promising to do exactly opposite!"

 

[uscitizen]

Take the globalists at their word. Globalists leaders feel no special loyalty to the nations they rule. Their allegiance is to corporations and the world bank. They openly tell us they don't care about us, but the international gdp. Why aren't we booting them out on their sellout asses?

Because our govt is owned by them.
And many of us as well.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Take the globalists at their word. Globalists leaders feel no special loyalty to the nations they rule. Their allegiance is to corporations and the world bank. They openly tell us they don't care about us, but the international gdp. Why aren't we booting them out on their sellout asses?

I prefer people who have no special loyalty to nations. Nations are evil. Perhaps a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.

I want leaders whose first loyalties are to the species and the world, not some antique, artificial abstraction like Nation.

 

[Crashk]

I prefer people who have no special loyalty to nations. Nations are evil. Perhaps a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.

I want leaders whose first loyalties are to the species and the world, not some antique, artificial abstraction like Nation.

the problem with this is that very few leaders have loyalties to the species. their only loyalties are with corporate profits and the power it brings. Call me a nationalist or a protectionist or isolationist, i dont care. I believe in the sovereignty and well being of this country first. At this point if we go along with the globalists we will become a feudalistic society.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[OrnotBitwise]

the problem with this is that very few leaders have loyalties to the species. their only loyalties are with corporate profits and the power it brings. Call me a nationalist or a protectionist or isolationist, i dont care. I believe in the sovereignty and well being of this country first. At this point if we go along with the globalists we will become a feudalistic society.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Thomas Jefferson

True enough. Loyalty to species, however, is most often expressed not explicitly but rather as a dedication to ethical and moral conduct. I use the word "moral" simply for lack of a better: in American political discourse today, "moral" behavior has come to mean a lot of things that are, in my opinion, entirely immoral.

I want leaders who would not kill innocent civilian Iraqis even if doing so would be in the "best interests" of the United States. I want leaders for whom national interest doesn't trump all other concerns.

 

[Lao Tse]

I prefer people who have no special loyalty to nations. Nations are evil. Perhaps a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.

I want leaders whose first loyalties are to the species and the world, not some antique, artificial abstraction like Nation.

Think of a nation as an extended network of people who will assist you in the business of living, a group of individuals banded together to help each other. The concept of nation is derided by those who wish destroy that solidarity, in order to destroy people of the nation, who benefit as individuals from the solidarity. It's a hostile act presented as enlightenment.

 

[Lao Tse]

True enough. Loyalty to species, however, is most often expressed not explicitly but rather as a dedication to ethical and moral conduct. I use the word "moral" simply for lack of a better: in American political discourse today, "moral" behavior has come to mean a lot of things that are, in my opinion, entirely immoral.

I want leaders who would not kill innocent civilian Iraqis even if doing so would be in the "best interests" of the United States. I want leaders for whom national interest doesn't trump all other concerns.

Yes morality is dedication to humanity, a commitment to prosperity. Principles like honesty and not stealing allow people to trust each other and work together, exploiting the benefits of being a primarily social species.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Think of a nation as an extended network of people who will assist you in the business of living, a group of individuals banded together to help each other. The concept of nation is derided by those who wish destroy that solidarity, in order to destroy people of the nation, who benefit as individuals from the solidarity. It's a hostile act presented as enlightenment.

This is exactly what a nation is not. A nation is more correctly a self-sustaining "organism" that produces human beings in its own image. All nations are intrinsically short-sighted and, if left unchecked, destructive.

What you call "solidarity" is nothing more than the abrogation of responsibility and submission to authority -- i.e. the rape of the majority for the benefit of the elite few. It is fundamentally evil.

 

[Lao Tse]

This is exactly what a nation is not. A nation is more correctly a self-sustaining "organism" that produces human beings in its own image. All nations are intrinsically short-sighted and, if left unchecked, destructive.

What you call "solidarity" is nothing more than the abrogation of responsibility and submission to authority -- i.e. the rape of the majority for the benefit of the elite few. It is fundamentally evil.

No. What you consider abandonment of a system you irrationally abhor, is, in fact, submission to an even higher totalitarian authority which considers you a resource or a liability and will either optimize or liquidate you. This is a perversion of economics into a weapon.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No. What you consider abandonment of a system you irrationally abhor, is, in fact, submission to an even higher totalitarian authority which considers you a resource or a liability and will either optimize or liquidate you. This is a perversion of economics into a weapon.

LOL! The industrialist accuses the socialist of perverting economics? That's the funniest thing I've read in months.

You're the one who needs some sort of imaginary, mystical crutch to prop up your weak, emotionally derived and self-serving opinions. You're the one so convinced he's going to come up one of the winners that he's willing to consign eighty or ninety percent of the human race to subservient and menial status, just to support himself and his elite brethren.

It's you free-market types who treat labor as a resource only and, hence, the cost of labor as a liability. You tell yourselves otherwise, of course, but lack the intellectual honesty to really look at the consequences of your selfish preferences.

Nationalism is even worse, subjugating diversity to the demands of an authoritarian solidarity designed to maintain the status quo at all costs. Nationalism is the single most destructive and, frankly, evil tool ever devised by human elitists. Which is to say, the wealthy, of course.

 

[Lao Tse]

LOL! The industrialist accuses the socialist of perverting economics? That's the funniest thing I've read in months.

You're the one who needs some sort of imaginary, mystical crutch to prop up your weak, emotionally derived and self-serving opinions. You're the one so convinced he's going to come up one of the winners that he's willing to consign eighty or ninety percent of the human race to subservient and menial status, just to support himself and his elite brethren.

It's you free-market types who treat labor as a resource only and, hence, the cost of labor as a liability. You tell yourselves otherwise, of course, but lack the intellectual honesty to really look at the consequences of your selfish preferences.

Nationalism is even worse, subjugating diversity to the demands of an authoritarian solidarity designed to maintain the status quo at all costs. Nationalism is the single most destructive and, frankly, evil tool ever devised by human elitists. Which is to say, the wealthy, of course.

Im not totally free market. I believe we shuld limit our trading partners to those with a similar concept of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion and full freedom of expression. This makes me a radical protectionist in the minds of the globalization drunk industrialists, who, by the way, you have more in common with than I do.


Nations can be diverse. People of different species can form survival groups with each other. Despite americas' success as a melting pot, globalist nihlist liars like you still seek to subvert our national trust, turning the elites against the people through the process of globalization.

We seem to agree, but in the next post or so you will reveal which side you're actually on.

 

[Lao Tse]

Hey nutsuck, explain again real quick about how affirmative action isn't racial discrimination against white people. Somehow I feel the complexity of your answer will mysteriously defy summary. That's a common ruse among people as full of shit as you. Here's My dick in your face.

 

[Damocles]

Hey nutsuck, explain again real quick about how affirmative action isn't racial discrimination against white people. Somehow I feel the complexity of your answer will mysteriously defy summary. That's a common ruse among people as full of shit as you. Here's My dick in your face.

What's with all the ad hominem? If your argument is strong, as you continuously believe that it is, ad hominem is unnecessary.

 

[Lao Tse]

What's with all the ad hominem? If your argument is strong, as you continuously believe that it is, ad hominem is unnecessary.

The adhominem is an entertaining addition to the sound arguments, not a substitute. I provide both. I'm a full service asskicker.