[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: What is the textbook definition of a democrat Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Nov 11, 2018 Author: Definition Post Date: 2018-11-11 11:27:06 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 5492 Comments: 68 Democrat noun 1. A murderer of innocent children. 2. A person who is attracted to someone of their same sex. 3. A thief that wants to live off of someone else's labor. Feels a sense of entitlement to others labor. 4. An anti christian bigot who hates God and morals. 5. Someone who cuts off or has someone cut off their penis because they are mentally ill and do not know their own sex. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41. #24. To: A K A Stone (#0) I think you have misspelled, it what you describe is a demorat; although I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics. Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   0:23:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: paraclete (#24) (Edited) I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics. Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun Yes. These and many other issues are the Democrats' Achilles' Heel. They are totalitarians on social and freedom issues. They want to control speech - unless it's theirs. They don't care about the freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms. They don't really care about the Constitution, except when it serves their purposes. They worship at the altar of abortion, and they have made public sexual deviancy into a civil right. They're not at all keen on law and order, or - post Vietnam - national defense. Because of all of these bad traits, Democrats are unable to get a lock on power. Independents like me find them disgusting. Because Republicans are terrible at economics and hate poor people, sick people, old people and anybody they have to spend money on, they're disgusting in their own right. And so the 28% or so who are Republican and the 32% or so who are Democrat take their positions in every election cycle, and the 40% of us who are Independents choose between two bad options, taking a "Shoot the wolf closest to the sled" approach. In general, the key Democratic social programs are so deeply entrenched that a few years of Republican rule - with substantial numbers of Democrats in the Senate and in the judiciary and administrative agencies to slow down or stop any sort of radical elimination program - cannot really touch them. So we can have relative financial irresponsibility under Republican rule but not have to endure the Democrat totalitarianism on religious, speech and personal liberty issues. Once the Republicans fuck up the economy again, as they always do with steep tax cuts uncoupled with spending cuts, we end up putting a Democrat back in their to right them ship. But the Democrats' odious school-marm tone costs them power once things have stabilied. If Democrats weren't such cunts they'd be the permanent majority. The same is true if Republicans didn't hate working people so much. But it is what it is. And that's why Independents decide all American elections, and why neither party gets a lock on power - although Democrats did largely have a lock during a half- century of building the Social Welfare state. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-12   7:04:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Vicomte13 (#26) They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   8:02:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: paraclete (#32) They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result When have the American people had nothing? This has always been a relatively rich, middle class country. Slaves had nothing, and immigrants fresh off the boat from Ireland and Italy, etc., often started with nothing, but pretty soon they had something, because they were able to easily get jobs and earn money, and farmers were able to easily buy land (something virtually impossible for the poor in crowded, cramped old Europe). People had something, but there was a gaping hole when they got hold or sick. Social Security covered that. The first universal public school system in the world, for both sexes, was Massachusetts Bay colony, and it was a fantastic success. New England may have been rustic and very much a farmer-and-tradesman society in the 1600s and 1700s, but it was also the most educated place on the planet, with a higher literacy rate than London or Paris or Rome. That New England model spread from there to the Midwest by way of the Northwest Ordnance, which partition one- thirty-sixth of the land specifically for public education purposes. Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something, mostly always been "middle class" by the standards of the time. They always "had something". And were relatively well-educated. It was a well-educated middle class population that voted for Social Security and Unemployment benefits and Medicare, because we decided we needed it. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-12   8:39:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Vicomte13 (#33) Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something, You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor. You know what it is they always HAD, pride and it is not a virtue paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   22:53:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 41. #42. To: paraclete (#41) and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Vic is all for the socialist agenda. He once said America should be taxed and spread our wealth to the whole world. He wants worldwide globalist welfare. He said so. FDR the socialist is practically a god to him. Vic thinks there hasn't been a greater president since FDR. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-12 22:58:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: paraclete (#41) (Edited) You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor. Why yes, yes I DO know that there was a worldwide Depression starting in 1929. To blame the Depression entirely on the US is quite blind really: the destruction of Europe in World War I, Revolution and civil war all across the East of Europe, and the trauma of German economic collapse thanks to war reparations and hyperinflation - imposed on Germany by the victorious European powers through the Versailles Treaty (which America did not ratify) - these were the primary drivers of European misery. The American stock market crashed - not for the first time, not for the last time. The reason that was a worldwide depression was primarily because the Europeans were a bunch of cunts, earnestly desiring to devour each other and playing Risk with the world map (British Empires, French Empires, exclusive economic zones, holding down India and Indochina, and holding down Germany). The US withdrew into the Isolation we had ALWAYS PRACTICED since the dawn of our republic. We had come out of it ONCE, just once, to save France and Britain from being overrun by the Germans in 1918. We won the war for the West, but then were ignored in the peace treaty - Germany was punished at Versailles, very much against the will of the United States. So we refused to ratify the Treaty and went home, embittered. We returned to our traditional posture of isolation. It was BECAUSE OF the disregard of the United States at Versailles that the people of US wanted nothing to do with the European War when it broke out again in 1939. France and Britain had relied on us to save them in 1918, but then ignored our wishes at Versailles. Therefore, the American people opted to stay out of European affairs for good. The fall of France in 1940 and the neutrality of the USA during the London Blitz and the long siege of Britain in 1940 and 1941 was the direct result of British and French arrogance at the end of World War I. We came to their rescue in 1918, and they ignored our wishes at the end of that war, imposing their own will, and setting themselves up for a repeat war with Germany - a war that we had no intention of participating in. France and England made their bed in 1918. They were the world empires. Let them lie in it in 1939 and 1940 and 1941. That was the American view. Truth is, the US probably would have NEVER entered the European war at all. After Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany. It was Hitler, the madman, who dragged the US into the European war on December 10, 1941, by declaring war on the United States. We didn't declare war on Germany - Pearl Harbor did not trigger war with Germany. The Germans, stupidly, declared war on us. If Hitler had not done so, the US would have concentrated on Japan and made quicker work of the Japanese, and may never have become involved in war against Germany at all. So, this whole business of the US nationalist fervor, and US-led depression and all of that claptrap. Newsflash: in 1929 the US was NOT responsible for running "the world system". The British and French had very arrogantly and confidently pushed us off the stage at Versailles and assumed the role of world co-hegemons. WE did the heavy lifting at the end of the war, stopping the Ludendorff Offensive after the Germans had already broken through the British and French lines. Had the US Army and Marine Corps not been present, Paris would have fallen and Germany would have won that war. We won the war, but we immediately lost the peace. Clemenceau famously said "Wilson bores me with his 14 points. The Almighty only needed 10 commandments." It's funny, and arrogant, and archetypical of the patent disdain with which the English and the French held the Americans at the end of 1918. We were nothing but muscle to them, muscle they were happy to use for their purposes but, having defeated the German threat with American arms, the British and the French had no intention of listening to the Americans, or sharing power, or allowing the US to expand freely into their colonial markets. Nope. They reassumed their "world leadership", and sent the American diplomats home, tail between our legs. The US won the war but was diplomatically humiliated by Britain and France after the war. They humiliated us, and they humiliated the Germans too. But they had to live with the Germans. We went home and stayed there. And they provoked the Germans by what they did, and proved themselves militarily inferior to the Germans once again, and had to rely on American rescue once again, but this time the Americans, rightly, did not come to the rescue of Britain and France. France was overwhelmed. And Britain was bombed flat, and forced to fight alone until she was utterly bankrupted. When the Americans finally came in, only after the Germans declared war on us, Britain was a convenient aircraft carrier, and the British Army and Navy became to us what the American Army and Marines had been to them in the previous war: muscle to be ultimately commanded on the chessboard by Americans. In short, we LEARNED from our humiliation in World War I, and stayed out this time, until France was destroyed and Russia was ruined and Britain was bankrupt, and then we came in, as a colossus, at the end of the war, and have ruled the world ever since. American-led Depression? No. Britain and France were the leaders of the world in 1929, not us. The Americans had a stock market bust, as had happened many times before. The Depression was worldwide because the British and French were cunts to the Germans after World War I - very much AGAINST the will of the Americans - and crashed the German economy with their reparations demands - the Americans did not demand reparations. But Britain and France were too weak to hold down Germany or Russia, so they faced the rise of the Nazis and the Soviets, and had nothing like the power necessary to stop either. Meanwhile, the Americans were back home in their own continent AS THEY ALWAYS HAD BEEN, taking care of their own local affairs AS WE HAD ALWAYS, and protecting our markets AS WE ALWAYS HAD for over a century. There was nothing NEW about American behavior. What WAS new was that the British and French were not strong enough or rich enough to be able to actually rule the world, or to contain either the German OR Soviet threat, or the Japanese threat in the East. They NEEDED American muscle, but they were arrogant cunts who would not share power. They expected America to serve their interests but not let our own will be the rule. They isolated us at Versailles, so we went home. And we did not come back until they were all destroyed. Then we came in, picked up the pieces, and have not shared power ever since. We won World War I but lost the peace at Versailles. So we returned to our native posture of isolation and local development, and did not enter World War II at all. We let the world burn itself down. The world - the Japanese and Germans - dragged us into the war by declaring war on us. When we came in, we conquered them both, and imposed the new world order afterwards. The US did not cause the Great Depression. We merely won it. Europe went Communist, National Socialist and Imperialist. American preserved democracy and capitalism, with just enough social welfare to prevent us from following the stupid path of Europeans and Asians. So we emerged the victor. That's what happened. Could it all have been avoided? Sure. In two ways. One was for the US to stay out of World War I. Then the Germans would have conquered France in 1918, thereby rejuvenating the German economy and allowing the Germans to transfer forces en-masse to the Middle East to shore up their ally Turkey. The UK would have had to sue for peace or lose their empire. The result: a German-dominated Europe, which would have gotten on pretty well with the USA, probably. The other was for the English and French to respect American wishes at Versailles and not impose crippling reparations on Germany. Then the Americans would have stayed allied and engaged, the German economy would not have collapsed, and there would have been no rise of national socialism in Germany. The borders of Free Europe would be pretty much where they are now, and the USA would have been integrated into the structure. You would have had the equivalent of NATO with much more equal partners: the USA, the British Empire (intact), the French Empire (intact), a German Republic, and a free Eastern Europe that never would have fallen under the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those things happened. So the US went home, Britain and France ruled the world for about 20 more years, then lost it all, the US was dragged back out of our shell by Japan and Germany. We beat both of them, and ended up in 2018 where we COULD HAVE ended up in 1920, except that today it's the USA alone as the hegemon, with Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Canada and Australia and the other little countries all part of a grand alliance headed by the USA. It could have been a union of equals, but Britain and France refused to respect the Americans in 1918. Now here you are blaming us for the Great Depression. WE didn't cause it. The British and French did, by imposing reparations on Germany. Nor did we cause World War II. What we did is win both the Depression and the Second World War and essentially conquered the world. That's why you resent us so much and retroject blame upon us that properly falls primarily on the British Empire and the French Empire. Not guilty. We didn't do it. We didn't start it. We didn't cause it. We didn't want to be part of any of it. We wanted to be left alone in our hemisphere. The world dragged us in against our will. So we conquered it. We were able to do so because our political philosophy and economic and military structures are all superior to anything that Europe or Asia ever came up with. That's why we won and they lost. That's why we rule the world, and always will for the rest of our lives, and our children's lives, and our great- grandchildren's lives. The Pax Americana is a good thing, on balance. Except for our enemies. Our enemies choose to be our enemies. It would be better for everybody to just submit. Makes commerce flow better, and that raises all boats. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-13 09:19:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 41. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com