reply to post by EarthCitizen07
In the typical fashion of a left wing autocrat you gleefully reveal your own love of tyranny by declaring that people do not have money as an avenue
of to espouse their views, as if it were up to you. This, of course, is why you are against the 1st Amendment and would no doubt repeal it or abolish
it all together, if you had the chance. It certainly explains why you have a problem with the Supreme Court upholding the 1st Amendment as rule of
law. It reveals your own lawlessness, just as I stated about you earlier.
You attempt to reduce political speech to nothing more than internet postings, and even more amusingly the vote, somehow failing to make the
connection that a vote is every bit as symbolic as currency. A vote would be cast in the form of ballot, which would serve as the same kind of medium
of exchange that notes do in the form of legal tender.
You further reveal your own Marxist tendencies by stating, as if it were some fact, that political campaigning was a public expense. In fact, you
scream it textually by using all caps to state it is so, not even bothering to suggest that this is the way you think it should be, instead arguing it
as if it is all ready this way. While, of late, tax dollars are used to finance political campaigns, this was not always the case, and it is
demonstrable that public finance is but only a very small portion of what finances a political campaign.
You willfully engage in mendacity attempting to argue that political finance is a public expenditure, apparently pretending that you did not all ready
earlier admit that President Obama had become the first major party candidate to forgo public financing in favor of solely accepting private
financing, since public assistance of political campaigns first began.
It matters not if you agree with others or not, your disagreement does not give you any right to impose your views upon the nation as if it is law.
Indeed, so willing are you to expose your own tyrannical nature, that if I were a part of the dissenting opinion on the SCOTUS ruling I would suspect
you were a shill for the advocates, only pretending to be a left wing radical. I suspect such venerable dissenters, and the honorable opposition are
cringing at your posts, as they would understand that your stance is all too similar to theirs, and by association you indict them along with you.
If it weren't for you own insistence that taxation is a (again in all caps screaming) necessity to organized co-existence, I would most assuredly
suspect you are a shill, but such assertions that those who view over taxation as a rape of the people being so reviled by you, now makes me suspect
you are most likely a government employee dependent upon taxation in order to survive yourself.
The fact that you declare Social Security one of the most beneficial programs ever developed and further castigating those who disagree with such a
sweeping generalization has having contempt for the "middle class". By extension of such a poorly thought out statement, you again reveal your own
contempt for a large portion of society by implying that Social Security was a program developed for the "middle class" alone and not intended to
benefit the poor or rich. When making these arguments you have that typical tendency to reveal your ideology and expose it for it flawed nature, when
you assert that "no one can prove anything".
Your next assertion I am going to quote in its entirety:
"Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do
NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!"
And then I am going to quote it again, just to punctuate the lunacy of your argument:
"Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do
NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!"
Yes my brother, you are tragically naive if you genuinely believe a (again screamed in all caps) voters tax will somehow purify the political system.
As if a tax is not a contribution and then by your own definition, bribery.
While your assertion that you do not hate corporations is dubious, as your character in general seems to be fairly hostile, and while there are those
who would embrace you as a friend, you return this gesture with rejecting them as a foe, again your left wing Marxist ideology is exposed when you
scream your lamentations that corporations are extremely more powerful than labor unions in terms of financial status.
There is a reason corporations are more financially secure than labor unions and that has everything to do with what a corporation produces in stark
contrast with what labor unions produce. While I have no love for corporatism at all, at least corporations provide a product and service, unlike the
uselessness of unions that pretends their collective bargaining is a service to all, and by extension a service to the greater good. Unions are
parasites that have structured themselves just in the same statutory structure as a corporation, and yet far less powerful because of their own
parasitic nature.
You further reveal your own disdain for individuals and their natural right to equal representation under the law, when you assert that you believe in
equal representation of all interested parties. Such a qualification most certainly exposes your own contempt for individualism, and deigns to
suggest that you know best who those "interested parties" are. You continue to expose your own autocratic nature by using terms such as "allow"
to describe who has rights, and who doesn't.
You can scream your own ideology as loud and as long as you like, in the end, those critical thinkers who actually bother to listen to your
overbearing rhetoric, know your character, as it has been measure and weighed and found to be left wanting.
