reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
Such a long post lot of effort not any substance simple fact it is not up to you, or government or anyone else to decide how much someone else gets to
have, or what they earn.
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
How about you start by telling me how nothing that the OP posted has to do with Marxist ideology in anyway what so ever?
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Lol, well in a marxist inspired society, what do you expect the society to become? Thanks for adding to my point.
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Lol, please do educate me on exactly what my theory is, and what I am ignorant of it entertaining?
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Lol, please do educate me on exactly what my theory is, and what I am ignorant of it entertaining?
Good lord, first you say we all have equal opportunity as a good thing then you say it is marxist. Which one is it?
CJ
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Good lord I don't believe that I said whether or not it is a good or bad thing, it seems as if you are transforming my posts into whatever you wish..
You use "opportunity" quite a bit, typical. Tell me what defines one with "opportunity" in America? Explain how people in modern day America do not all have an "opportunity" to better themselves? Everyone in modern day America has an opportunity to succeed in this country.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ColoradoJens
I get out fine. I just pulled out my University textbook to make the point. It's not like I hadn't already studied it. It just gets tiring when people make assertions based on some balogna being fed to them by people promoting an agenda who aren't being on the level.
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Good lord I don't believe that I said whether or not it is a good or bad thing, it seems as if you are transforming my posts into whatever you wish..
You use "opportunity" quite a bit, typical. Tell me what defines one with "opportunity" in America? Explain how people in modern day America do not all have an "opportunity" to better themselves? Everyone in modern day America has an opportunity to succeed in this country.
What was your point then? Do you like to just post gibberish?
CJ
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
reply to post by ColoradoJens
Good lord I don't believe that I said whether or not it is a good or bad thing, it seems as if you are transforming my posts into whatever you wish..
You use "opportunity" quite a bit, typical. Tell me what defines one with "opportunity" in America? Explain how people in modern day America do not all have an "opportunity" to better themselves? Everyone in modern day America has an opportunity to succeed in this country.
What was your point then? Do you like to just post gibberish?
CJ
LOL. so let me get this straight, if one posts factual information in which are of relevance to a topic, yet do not give their personal opinion as to whether or not it is "good or bad" it is "posting gibberish"? Lol, I'm a bit confused though, because prior to this, you claimed that I DID in fact say that it was good, although I never posted such a thing, which is it?
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Libs said for 8 years that Bush was a fascist. Many people have said we might not have elections. I personally think Barak will not want to give up the power. But it's more, it's the whole Totalitarian machine picking up speed like a runaway train.
Sooo...you didn't address my questions. In your post back to me first you say you don't believe Obama will have a third term, then you say what you say above, indicating it is your belief. You also say "libs" said 8 years of Bush was fascist, ignoring your own CFR/Kissinger ties to Bush. So you are ok with the New World Order as long as they are Republicans. Ok then.
CJ
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Libs said for 8 years that Bush was a fascist. Many people have said we might not have elections. I personally think Barak will not want to give up the power. But it's more, it's the whole Totalitarian machine picking up speed like a runaway train.
Sooo...you didn't address my questions. In your post back to me first you say you don't believe Obama will have a third term, then you say what you say above, indicating it is your belief. You also say "libs" said 8 years of Bush was fascist, ignoring your own CFR/Kissinger ties to Bush. So you are ok with the New World Order as long as they are Republicans. Ok then.
CJ
I never said whether Obama would or would not have a third term, I said that I was having a conversation with someone and he mentioned the idea that TPTB might make it so that Obama has a third term, however that would be through war or economic collapse or whatever, because you see, we know Obama will do anything he wants. He said himself Congress was just a hangup and he'd just go around it, and we know that he does with Executive orders and such. Then I posted several other bloggers who have said similar things about how they think Obama would usurp authority and try to have another term, and then finally I posted that a democrat Senator has in fact introduced a resolution to amend the Amendment which was passed during the FDR term to limit terms of Presidential power because of what FDR did. Another thing that some Congress people were trying to do was to change the rules on who can become President and this was shortly before Obama's Presidential run. My guess is that they knew ahead that he would be in the run and they knew already the issues of his BC might come up. It was cloaked in McCain's run as well.
These people would do anything to sustain power.
Also Obama did say to Medvedev that he would have "more flexiblity" after the election..... And see they are revving up war with Iran and Israel.
When The Order brought G. Stanley Hall from Leipzig to Johns Hopkins University, John Dewey was already there, waiting to write his doctoral dissertation on "The Psychology of Kant." Already a Hegelian in philosophy, he acquired and adapted the experimental psychology of Wundt and Hall to his concept of education for social change. To illustrate this, here's a quote from John Dewey in My Pedagogic Creed:
"The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living."
What we learn from this is that Dewey's education is not child centered but State centered, because for the Hegelian, "social ends" are always State ends.
This is where the gulf of misunderstanding between modern parents and the educational system begins. Parents believe a child goes to school to learn skills to use in the adult world, but Dewey states specifically that education is "not a preparation for future living." The Dewey educational system does not accept the role of developing a child's talents but, contrarily, only to prepare the child to function as a unit in an organic whole - in blunt terms a cog in the wheel of an organic society. Whereas most Americans have moral values rooted in the individual, the values of the school system are rooted in the Hegelian concept of the State as the absolute.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
Such a long post lot of effort not any substance simple fact it is not up to you, or government or anyone else to decide how much someone else gets to have, or what they earn.