also – jefferson hated corporations because he was a plantation owner and hamilton\’s plan of developing an industrial base would have been bad for his slave-owning interests. so , if you\’re in that camp, then embrace it like the dickens.

I figured this was making sense to some of the people on here, and its good to see that someone understands this and shares my concerns.

What i’ve tried to do here is break down some of the bullshit and politically correct propaganda, and propose solutions to some of the problems we have, which would have a chance of working, and creating greater freedom and prosperity for the American people. I have no doubt that many others might have workable solutions to these problems, and as long as the purpose in them is greater freedom and prosperity for our people then we need to hear them as well.

Sunstar (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton Lol, that’s great, i would have made the same comparison), in her / his last “criticism” was curious what i do for a living, in an attempt to try and portray me as some backwoods hick who lived off the land (god i wish i could, that would be wonderful in my estimation). Well i solve problems for a living and i’m very good at it and get paid to the tune of several thousand dollars a day for doing so. Anyone who has actually lived in the real world, knows that in order to solve a problem, no matter how complex, you have to think, and break it down into its simplest components, determine the cause of each, and solve them on that level, then it becomes possible and there is not a single problem that exists in the world which cannot be solved that way as well.

Sunstar on the other hand, although he / she has criticized my solutions incessantly, has not provided a single solution to a single problem in the process of doing so, and instead says that the problems are too complicated for us to solve, and that we must trust and give power to people like him / her in order to allow them to solve them for us. The question that still remains is “HOW ?”. Since the motivation behind the entire socialist philosophy is pure and simple envy, and its purpose is to establish power for a few so that they can “feel” like a big man of woman being able to bully, control and victimize the rest of he population, the only thing that can be accomplished in trusting someone like this is that they will inevitably create more problems with their “solutions” in order to establish further power for themselves so that they can “feel” like an even bigger person in doing so.

Again, this is all perpetuated by the people who control our financial system. At first they end up enslaving a population through debt, and once they get the notion that people are beginning to realize that they would be better off without them and might want to get rid of them, they institute a socialist government which they can control, which in turn controls the population on their behalf and eliminates any means they might have to pose a threat to their continued existence. Whether our current style of “capitalism” or “socialism” it all comes from the same place and one must inevitably lead to the other if things are allowed to take their intended course with this. These are also the only people with the money and power in order to create and promote the “socialist” propaganda to the point where they can fool enough of the population into thinking that it might be palatable in order to succeed with it. Again, the single and only motivation is pure and simple envy, as they just can’t stand the thought of anyone being happy and successful other than themselves, and will do all that they can to prevent this, and as such is an incredibly evil thing as well. This is also their only option, as since they exist as parasites, and contribute absolutely nothing of any tangible value to anyone or anything, the only way they can exist is to use deception, threats, and power in order to force people into supporting them.

In regards to how Adolf Hitler came to power, i can understand this perfectly. You had an entire nation with enormous resources and the some of the greatest abilities and potential of any nation in the world, who’s population has been completely beaten down by artificially created economic circumstances, to the point where people were grasping at straws in order to be able to work and to eat. Hence they were desperate enough to give Hitler power, as he was the only one proposing a solution to the economic problem and little else mattered to them at that point. Had it not been for this, he would have gone down in history as the little corporal with dreams of becoming a tyrant, and to his own population would have been little more than a bad joke. He was put in power by circumstances created by the worlds banks, which are identical to the ones they have been trying to create for us here now, and they are now following the blueprint he created to secure their own power to the letter, as they’ve seen it work, and their motivations are identical.

As i said before though, the good thing is, that you still have an awfully hard time buying a box of ammunition in this country, as it is being snapped up as quickly as it can be manufactured, and is still back ordered for months in advance by all of the standard suppliers. Its been many months since the last presidential election, and this is still happening, so rather than a temporary reaction, its obvious that the American population are steadily and progressively arming themselves in preparation of having to defend their freedom should it become necessary. Both Obama and the people who put him in power know this as well and are living in absolute terror of the American people, as they know that if they attempt to accomplish the full extent of their power ambitions that they will have a war on their hands and they will lose. I believe that the American revolution was fought and won by about 5 % of the population, and we certainly have a far greater percentage preparing to fight and win it again as we speak. That percentage would probably include a good portion of the US military as well, as their primary oath of allegiance is to the constitution, with the secondary being to the president. When the two are in conflict i think its a safe bet that most would follow the first. Once again, thank you America, i love you and you may yet survive.

The one problem is that these bastards will keep trying to secure this power for themselves, again, and again and again, and it just isn’t going to stop, until the American population gets pushed to the extent that they will decide to forcibly eliminate them and solve the problem permanently. I’m hopeful that this might happen at some point, if not in my our lifetime then in that of future generations. As long as the population maintains the same love of freedom that it has today today, eventually it must.

Thanks again Lee, its good to see that someone is making sense of this and shares in some of my views, which i believe, as you say, were the views of our countries founding fathers as well. It will be interesting to see if Sunstar comes back and tries to criticize your sentence structure and grammar, and rails on and on with more unintelligible nonsense about the complex problems that exist in our society which neither you or me are able to understand, as that’s all that he / she seems to be able to do, as sense and reason simply don’t apply in this persons situation Lol.

You take care and i’m wishing you the very best

Dave

Lee

It’s infuriating after a while. Why does The Freeman put up with it? What in the world is wrong with your commenting software?

Also: Some of you folks could stand a few more paragraph breaks. If you’re writing important stuff — and I presume you think you are — then you should be more intent on communicating it effectively.

You want an audience, not glazed-over eyeballs.

As to your second paragraph: Are you saying the either/or fallacy doesn\’t apply to thinking about a \"public commodity\"? Also, it would be useful if you\’d provide the actual quote from my text so we could see if I actually wrote what you\’re attributing to me or if you simply made it up to deflect the argument. Something \"specific\" would be most helpful.

Paragraph 3:David, I was talking about Ken Lewis as both leader and employer (either \’and\’ or, A \’and\’ B, and thus, not one \’or\’ the other). In both cases he was dealing with people who were working for him willingly. Those who didn\’t left the company, I assume. Your apples and oranges are more like ants and goblins here.

Paragraph 4: \"Your philosophies are very familiar to me, and are EXACTLY what was responsible for destroying the lives of a great many people where i came from,\" I emphasize the word \"exactly\" to highlight the either/or , black/white thinking that runs through your posts. Your statement is simplistic and offensive.

Paragraph 5: \"Freedom is an absolute\". . . This I wish to be true–and you, David, \"erroneously\" believe to be true. The \"concept\" of freedom is an absolute; in practice–in the real world– it hasn\’t existed since first man encountered another man –or woman. The moment limits were created–my land, your land, my wife, your wife-, etc. \"absolute freedom\" ceased to exist.

Paragraph 6: a/You never did tell me what happens to the power you wrest from someone who has it.
b/\". . . i am not willing to be subject to anyone’s power\". In your third paragraph you wrote \"where the employee has agreed to perform them [duties]\" Are you employed? If so, I hope you see the conflict between your two statements, in particular in the phrases \"has agreed to\" and \"i am not willing\". If you\’re self-employed, you don\’t honestly believe you\’re not subject to someone else\’s power. Do you live off the land? Do you live in that magic land you continually describe where men,obviously, men must be perfect for life to go on?

Paragraph 7: \"one last time\"–One can only hope and pray. Paragraph #1 redux.

This will be my last response to you, your simply trying to complicate simple issues here in an attempt to justify your philosophies, and i think most of those reading the posts will have that figured out for themselves as well. I’ll only deal with a couple of the most ludicrous ones as i don’t have time for the rest.

Firstly, there is one hell of a difference between controlling and regulating a public commodity that a country needs in order to function and controlling and regulating the individual lives of the population, its apples and oranges, and your statement is ridiculous.

There is also one hell of a difference between an employer instructing an employee in the performance of his duties, where the employee has agreed to perform them in exchange for payment, as opposed to forcibly imposing laws and regulations on individuals against their will, again, apples and oranges, and your statement is ridiculous.

As per my previous, i’ve said what i needed to say for the benefit of others on this site. Your philosophies are very familiar to me, and are exactly what was responsible for destroying the lives of a great many people where i came from, and your simply playing a game in order to attempt to confuse simple minds with the complexity of your statements and responses in order to get them to marvel at this complexity and think that they need you to help them manage their lives. Needless to say, i’m not impressed, i’ve seen it all before along with the end result of it, and i’m thankful that enough of the American people at this point have been wise enough not to believe the bullshit and take the measures they needed to in order to keep it from coming about as well, this must frustrate you to no end.

Freedom is absolute, as is the responsibility to respect the freedom of others, and when one fails to do that, this is where justice and society comes into play. Aside from that, each and every one of us has the simple and absolute right to be left alone, including yourself. As i said, its a simple thing, and the world is a simple place, which can function on simple principles. The only thing that keeps it from working is people like yourself who make things so complicated that they can no longer work, and 95 % of the problems that we have in this world are created by people like yourself in order to justify their need for power.

The difference between us is that your need is for power and control, and if you have it, or ever obtain it, you will also be completely subject to the power and control of whoever gave it to you, and your willing to be subject to this as well. In my instance, i am not willing to be subject to anyone’s power, nor do i have the desire, or the right to establish it over someone else, and this is both the right and the obligation of any free person in any free society which is something you simply don’t seem to understand, and will never be willing to accept.

I really don’t have time for this, but some of your responses have been so ridiculous it was fun to point this out one last time, hopefully someone here will be entertained.

Dave.

So. . .the amendments. Why bother discussing them? Indeed, what would be the point? Many times, either/or, black/white thinking is where disagreements arise in Supreme Court decisions and public opinion regarding the entire Constitution, amendments included.

“. . .controlled and regulated by the people (the governments they elect), and for the benefit of all the people as well”

And therein lies the rub, David. Let me repeat, in different words, what I’ve said before. Human beings–and “the governments they elect– are imperfect. And they –humans and governments–are imperfectible. If this were Utopia, your ideas might succeed for more than a brief time in a bygone era.

Actually this is the one thing that i can see us agreeing on, the problem is that you\\\’ve been believing and supporting the same bullshit that has been used by those who would prevent a \\"free economy\\" from happening, and the same things that have been used as an excuse to secure their power in every other place in the world to the extent where no one could ever make it happen.

As i stated, to have a \\"free market economy\\", you need the currency, the primary means of exchange, to be created, controlled and regulated by the people (the governments they elect), and for the benefit of all the people as well. Not by private interests that will use it to establish progressively more power for themselves. As i said, freedom and power can\\\’t exist in the same space, its always one at the expense of the other, so free economy = free currency, administered only and solely for the benefit of a free population. In this case the need is for the state to administer a \\"public\\" asset, so that it can benefit the population and not be used by \\"private\\" interests to establish \\"power\\" and \\"control\\" to deprive the population of their \\"individual freedom\\", as it has everywhere else. It\\\’s funny too, the people behind this use the philosophies of socialism to generate hatred against people like themselves, and fool populations into giving up their freedom, thinking they will be better off, and once that\\\’s done they remain the slave masters behind the scenes pulling the strings of the governments they created to enslave them, and by the time people figure it out its too late to do anything about it, and they are infinitely worse off than ever before.

I think we\\\’ve actually agreed on something here.

Re: the first and second amendment or any of your other statements (most of which are complicated way beyond description and impossible for me to make any sense out of), what is the point in responding ?, i\\\’ve said all i need to say and since we will always be on opposite sides of the freedom issue it\\\’s a waste of time.

Dave

First, from Column A, “There are those who take pleasure in seeing others happy and successful, who will do what they can to establish this for themselves and those around them.” Some may call these good leaders. Would you? Then from Column B we have “Those who take pleasure in controlling and manipulating others, telling them what to do. . .” Let’s call them employers. You’d admit, I hope, that it’s difficult to be an employer without “controlling and manipulating others” and “telling them what to do”–else little would ever be achieved in the workplace. So the boss takes pleasure in that: Could you rightfully deny him enjoying his work? Don’t you want to enjoy the work you do?

It should come as no surprise that I don’t see a conflict between the leadership trait, and the employer trait–in fact, I believe most employers are leaders, but not every employer is a good leader. But one comes from Column A–your ‘either’ column) and one comes from Column B–your ‘or’ column. Are you beginning to see the problem?

Let’s use Ken Lewis, ex-CEO of BofA, to illustrate.

From Column A: Lewis,was a leader and an employer who, one could argue was “. . .serv[ing] a cause greater than [himself]–BofA, its shareholders and its board—just as a general in the USMC would follow the commander-in-chief for the greater cause.

From Column B: One might also argue–but it’s more of a stretch– that Lewis “. . .inflicted whatever hardship, strife or misery [he could] on others so that [he could] “feel” powerful and in control.”

In each of the preceding two paragraphs, you’d have to be inside Lewis’ mind to know the ‘truth’ of the matter. It’s like trying to prove “intent” in a court of law. You’ve reached conclusions in both cases for which you simply don’t have any evidence other than your own black/white theories.

Into this mix, throw in the fact that Lewis’ is the classic all-American story. His mother was a nurse, his father was a sergeant in the armed services. He started working off and on at age twelve. Like too many Americans, he’s divorced and remarried, has two children and two grandchildren, has basically worked within the same organization all his life, and worked his way to the top.

So can you give me a sensible explanation why he must be from either Column A or Column B but not from somewhere else, like Column C or Column D?

“They have . . . very little [respect] for laws, and instead value justice, and their right to live their lives as they choose without interference from government or society.
I think you’re trying to have it two or three ways at the same time here. If you want justice without laws, historically you’d likely have to depend on community approach to problem solving: arbitration,mediation,religious ritual, etc. And that’s darn hard to accomplish “‘without’ interference from . . .society” since community and society are virtually synonymous.

Question: If you take away power from the “forces” you identify, what happens to the power? Does it simply disappear? What was the last society that existed without power?

Finally: David wrote on(April 3)that “Free market, free economy ?[is] bullshit, they never existed here, except for the short time prior to the revolution that i mentioned in my previous, and a short time afterwards until until “big money” became established and figured out how to buy power for itself.”
On May 2 David wrote :”In view of some of my previous, before Sunstar came on here, the term “free market economy” is a myth.”

I said (April 21)”The phrase \”free market economy\” is central to the discussion here. And the word \”free\” is at the core of the phrase. Almost by definition we assume any restriction, regulation, guidance from the government would therefore be counterproductive. Perhaps the phrase was an unfortunate one from its inception, since most disagreements about the subject seemed to be based on an ideal of \”absolute freedom\”. In the real world, among real human beings, with real human foibles, the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight.”

You quibbled about the last 6 words, but we’re not far from general agreement on this. I say it can’t work because of human weaknesses, and you say it’s myth (pretty much what I’m saying).Your statement that I’ve quoted above from April 3 supports what I was stating. The “free” in “free market economy” is an unreachable ideal. As in the example you provide, you can aim at a “free market economy” you can try to put it into operation, but, in your words, “Free market, free economy ? bullshit, they never existed here, //except for the short time// prior to the revolution that i mentioned in my previous, and //a short time afterwards// until , in your words, “‘big money’ became established and figured out how to buy power for itself.” I’d put it differently: Greed, pure and simple, won out. And “that’s” why a free market economy won’t work without controls.

What, no responses to my previous post concerning the 1st and 2nd amendments?