Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Thanato

When was America Great?

327 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

pbarosso
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

This one's a beauty, too...

we need to make a special island for people who are emotional based thinkers (liberals)

Such "American" values. Can you show me in the Constitution where you found that one?

well criminals are put in jail you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

it would not be systematic extermination. it would be "hey americans, you go pick the crops and do other jobs or you wil starve to death" and watch how many people get to work.

You're assuming that people working full time are not in poverty. That's not true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

well criminals are put in jail you know

It's not a crime to have different opinions than you do.

Yet.

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

oh no im not. poverty is necessary to create struggle. struggle makes people rise to the occasion and get better.

1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

You're assuming that people working full time are not in poverty. That's not true.

poverty is necessary to grow and learn how not to be in it. if people cant figure that out by themselves then there is no hope. they will statistically pass it on their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.  would save the US a lot of money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

It's not a crime to have different opinions than you do.

Yet.

heard of subversion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

subversion: a crime;  Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, pbarosso said:

heard of subversion?

I've heard of the Constitution. Have you read it? Maybe you should also borrow that copy after Trump's done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

this is what is and has been happening to our western civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.  would save the US a lot of money.  

That sure seems like his plan, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

subversion: a crime;  Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed.

It is not a crime of subversion to champion equal rights and try to help those less fortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
10 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

oh no im not. poverty is necessary to create struggle. struggle makes people rise to the occasion and get better.

poverty is necessary to grow and learn how not to be in it. if people cant figure that out by themselves then there is no hope. they will statistically pass it on their children

Oh...and do I detect a hint of eugenics as well? 

Way to show your true colors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

It is not a crime of subversion to champion equal rights and try to help those less fortunate.

you cant have a perfect society. equal rights is a fake issue created by leftists in order to control everyone and keep them in power. helping those less fortunate does not mean giving stuff away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso
3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh...and do I detect a hint of eugenics as well? 

Way to show your true colors. 

look, you seem to not understand how the world works until then, i have a kitchen floor to tile. i taught myself to tile. using my brains and "struggle" i remodeled the entire kitchen using "struggle". so i dont feel sorry for anyone except children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

you cant have a perfect society. equal rights is a fake issue created by leftists in order to control everyone and keep them in power. helping those less fortunate does not mean giving stuff away.

There's no such thing as a perfect society, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make it better. 

There is something wrong with sitting on a pile of gold and saying to the rest of America that making not even enough to eat (minimum wage folks often have to be on food stamps to do that) is too much money. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill
1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

I don't think that can happen by changing Presidents. When you say "leaders" I know you are not referring to just one person, but by arguing that Trump is potentially a "better choice" for the Presidency that is what your argument will be perceived as.

And I do not think that characterisation of Trump as "non-PC" is accurate. It's not that he's "non-PC", it's that he is a narcissistic buffoon lacking in empathy that makes him say the things he says. I don't doubt his business cunning, so I'm not suggesting he is without intelligence, but to characterise him as "non-PC" is to grant him a greater level of empathy than I suspect he deserves.

Don't take this as an argument in favour of Clinton, because her faults - though different to Trump's - are no less serious. All I am saying is that pinning one's hopes on Trump because of the appearance he has greater "business sense" is, imo, a false hope.

I want to explain what I see as the difference between a fearful hope and a false hope. As with our current President, we won't know if our hopes were false until the winning candidate is tested in battle, and his/her true colors are made obvious.

 During the previous two elections, President Obama was elevated by the media to 'Messiah' status; a quick look at current headlines (and current UM topics) show that those messianic hopes were proven false.

I'm not happy with either of the two leading candidates, though I will give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt until his political savvy is tested by fire. Ms. Clinton, in my opinion, showed her true colors when she abandoned our ambassador in Libya, and then blamed it on YouTube;  Ms. Clinton would be a poor Commander-in-Chief for our military.

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

look, you seem to not understand how the world works until then, i have a kitchen floor to tile. i taught myself to tile. using my brains and "struggle" i remodeled the entire kitchen using "struggle". so i dont feel sorry for anyone except children.

Lots of people are struggling and working hard. People born into wealth have the clear advantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
20 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

well criminals are put in jail you know

I wonder if you'd have blasphemers decapitated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Rlyeh said:

I wonder if you'd have blasphemers decapitated.

Interesting thought. 

I don't think they would be decapitated. Maybe just put on that island with people like me...the free thinkers...and starved to death, slowly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
10 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Bush started the fire.

No, he didn't.  Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate?  Bush wasn't flying those aircraft.  And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country.

10 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Obama poured gasoline on it. Clinton will play the fiddle while America burns. It almost seems like a planned and prepared conflagration to make our scorched earth more amenable to globalism.

He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries.  Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
14 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I want to explain what I see as the difference between a fearful hope and a false hope. As with our current President, we won't know if our hopes were false until the winning candidate is tested in battle, and his/her true colors are made obvious.

 During the previous two elections, President Obama was elevated by the media to 'Messiah' status; a quick look at current headlines (and current UM topics) show that those messianic hopes were proven false.

I'm not happy with either of the two leading candidates, though I will give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt until his political savvy is tested by fire. Ms. Clinton, in my opinion, showed her true colors when she abandoned our ambassador in Libya, and then blamed it on YouTube;  Ms. Clinton would be a poor Commander-in-Chief for our military.

  

Are you suggesting that "political savvy" hasn't been tested by the nomination campaign he has just waged?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
25 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

No, he didn't.  Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate?  Bush wasn't flying those aircraft.  And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country.

He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries.  Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards.

I think he might be referring to Bush #1 and the Soviet War in Afghanistan where we supported the Mujahedeen and Osama Bin Laden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill
9 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Are you suggesting that "political savvy" hasn't been tested by the nomination campaign he has just waged?

Absolutely. A campaign is no different than the dating ritual before marriage: you don't see the real person until after the vows.

Everything we've seen up to this point is the media's analysis of Mr. Trump's personality. He is still a political unknown.

Ms. Clinton has been in politics her entire adult life. We know what she's made of.

Here in the States, we have regional accents, as well as regional personalities. IMO, Mr. Trump's personality is a mix of South Chicago Cubs fan and New Jersey dock worker. I'm fine with that. I'm tired of the phony sophistication worn by American politicians. I'm not happy with either of our two leading candidates, but I know for certain that one of them will be our next president. I'm ready for someone who's comfortable in his own skin.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
2 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Absolutely. A campaign is no different than the dating ritual before marriage: you don't see the real person until after the vows.

Everything we've seen up to this point is the media's analysis of Mr. Trump's personality. He is still a political unknown.

Ms. Clinton has been in politics her entire adult life. We know what she's made of.

Here in the States, we have regional accents, as well as regional personalities. IMO, Mr. Trump's personality is a mix of South Chicago Cubs fan and New Jersey dock worker. I'm fine with that. I'm tired of the phony sophistication worn by American politicians. I'm not happy with either of our two leading candidates, but I know for certain that one of them will be our next president. I'm ready for someone who's comfortable in his own skin.

 

Wherein, if the person shows to be an ar$e during the courtship, only an idiot would marry said person... unless a masochist or befits that classification itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beefers
1 hour ago, pbarosso said:

there is such a thing as stable society. abortion, free money for births (welfare), godlessness, destruction of family values, do not count as stable society. you dont see this?

So basically you're against freedom. You forbid people from having an abortion, the freedom to choose religion or marry whoever they want.

And free money for having children, meh, it has good and bad sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.