- Mar 23, 2004
- 248,794
- 114,491
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The operative word is “If”
There is no "if" in absolute power.
Upvote
0
The operative word is “If”
Try to keep up. If ignorance is strength, Donald Trump is Mr. Universe.There is no "if" in absolute power.
Remind me again, who has absolute power in the US?A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA ... and beyond
Why absolute power is dangerous (and always HAS been):
"Ignorance is strength"
Try to keep up. I was responding to the posted quote by Brinny. If ignorance is strength, Donald Trump is Mr. Universe.
Remind me again, who has absolute power in the US?
Awwwww nice try, but the OP is about absolute power.
Isn't it?
LOL!
Ummmmm that's not what the OP is about....
The OP is about baseless paranoia.
Wait, between post 104 and 105 the subject of the OP changed?
You wont get an answer, even though the poster in question posted some pretty pictures about the same.
You see, answering a question on a topic they brought up, risks exposure and that must be avoided.
Your refusal to answer a simple question on a topic you brought up, is noted.
Thanks for evading.
Thanks for the entertainment.
...for all the wrong reasons.ROFLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Awwwww i'm sooooo flattered.
Thank you.
I'm delightful, aren't i?
Who said it was, Multilingualism by itself can't do much. Most of the responses are arguing against this one out of eight points. No one seems to be interested in the other points. But this could not push for autonomy until the sovereignty of a nation is relinquished or destroyed. Then a utopian one-world government can come in and pick up the pieces as they collectively do the same with others who willingly cooperate or not.No, multilingualism isn't synonymous with a push of autonomy...the person who made this speech carefully cherry picked the examples that suited the narrative they were trying to further.
DenialNo, none of this has anything to do with Socialism. The speaker in this case has made the same mistake as almost every other conspiracy theorist I've heard (Alex Jones, David Icke, Jim Marrs), in that they try to equate every single effort to help the less fortunate or promote middle-out economics as "Socialism" which...to the best of my knowledge, those things don't have anything to do with social ownership over the means of production so therefore, they're misusing the term the same way most other people do.
This speaker has pretty much used divisive rhetoric that basically tip-toes the line of nationalism and racism.
When these guys are talking about the issue of "it's wrong to celebrate diversity over unity", there are some critical flaws with their presentation of these two ideas:
1) They present them as mutually exclusive concepts when, in fact, you can celebrate both.
2) They present "other cultures" as an inherent enemy.
3) The "Unity" they speak of only ever seems to include 100% acceptance of their ideas...anything outside of their ideological box gets put in their "diversity" column which, as noted before, they portray as the enemy.
...for all the wrong reasons.