What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
Translation...
Mustard has been using ad hominem attacks and fear mongering because he can't get rational, intelligent and educated people to agree with him.

Fear mongering?!

Rational, intelligent, educated (you probably shouldn't use the term) people do agree with me.

I'm not looking for agreement.

I'm just here pointing the hateful fucks and fascism.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Unless you live in a country with laws.



I'm going to say that you're allergic to taxes.

I think everyone has the right to homeschooling for their children.



I'm not allergic to taxes.

It's seems really hard for you to answer some questions directly and honestly. So, I'll do it for you.

It is a contradiction to be "for liberty" and for forcing otherwise disinterested and peaceful people to pay for ideas you like, but they don't. To place peaceful people under threat of potential violence and then attempt a pearl clutching answer "but, but laws" doesn't change the fact that liberty and coercive funding are opposing concepts.

You are not allergic to holding two opposing ideas at once, and you've demonstrated that. Most of us do, some can admit it, some can't.

Talking with people who do that and then squirm around without admitting it, can be taxing.
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
It's seems really hard for you to answer some questions directly and honestly. So, I'll do it for you.

It is a contradiction to be "for liberty" and for forcing otherwise disinterested and peaceful people to pay for ideas you like, but they don't. To place peaceful people under threat of potential violence and then attempt a pearl clutching answer "but, but laws" doesn't change the fact that liberty and coercive funding are opposing concepts.

You are not allergic to holding two opposing ideas at once, and you've demonstrated that. Most of us do, some can admit it, some can't.

Talking with people who do that and then squirm around without admitting it, can be taxing.

By your argument there is no liberty where there is taxation.
 

iTarzan

Well-known member
Veteran
Horace Mann had six tenets HE HAD A GOOD IDEA BUT DEMOCRATS RUINED IT WITH DEI HIRES AND WOKENESS.

1. the public should no longer remain ignorant THEY HAVE FAILED STUDENTS FOR DECADES

2. that such education should be paid for, controlled, and sustained by an interested public THEY FORCE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CHILDREN AND WILL NEVER HAVE CHILDREN TO PAY TO EDUCATE OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. REMEMBER THE TEA PARTY? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

3. that this education will be best provided in schools that embrace children from a variety of backgrounds PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND HOME SCHOOLING DOES THIS TOO.

4. that this education must be non-sectarian IT NEEDS TO BE NON-POLITICAL TOO AND IT ISN'T. THEY HAVE WEEDED OUT REPUBLICANS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ALMOST COMPLETELY IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

5. that this education must be taught using the tenets of a free society THEY ARE ONLY USING DEMOCRAT TENETS

6. that education should be provided by well-trained, professional teachers. WE KNOW THAT ISN'T TRUE BY THE RESULTS. THEY ARE WOKE AND UNQUALIFIED.

I can see all of the trickery from here...NO YOU CAN'T. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO ABOLISH THE DEPT OF EDUCATION. THEY FAILED YOU TOO. YOU SUCK AT MATH, CAN'T WRITE CURSIVE, DON'T KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS, AGREE WITH CANCEL SOCIETY, CAN'T SHOOT, CAN'T FUCK AND CRY BECAUSE TRUMP WON.
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
Horace Mann had six tenets HE HAD A GOOD IDEA BUT DEMOCRATS RUINED IT WITH DEI HIRES AND WOKENESS.

1. the public should no longer remain ignorant THEY HAVE FAILED STUDENTS FOR DECADES

2. that such education should be paid for, controlled, and sustained by an interested public THEY FORCE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CHILDREN AND WILL NEVER HAVE CHILDREN TO PAY TO EDUCATE OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. REMEMBER THE TEA PARTY? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

3. that this education will be best provided in schools that embrace children from a variety of backgrounds PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND HOME SCHOOLING DOES THIS TOO.

4. that this education must be non-sectarian IT NEEDS TO BE NON-POLITICAL TOO AND IT ISN'T. THEY HAVE WEEDED OUT REPUBLICANS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ALMOST COMPLETELY IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

5. that this education must be taught using the tenets of a free society THEY ARE ONLY USING DEMOCRAT TENETS

6. that education should be provided by well-trained, professional teachers. WE KNOW THAT ISN'T TRUE BY THE RESULTS. THEY ARE WOKE AND UNQUALIFIED.

I can see all of the trickery from here...NO YOU CAN'T. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO ABOLISH THE DEPT OF EDUCATION. THEY FAILED YOU TOO. YOU SUCK AT MATH, CAN'T WRITE CURSIVE, DON'T KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS, AGREE WITH CANCEL SOCIETY, CAN'T SHOOT, CAN'T FUCK AND CRY BECAUSE TRUMP WON.

This is gold!

I'm going on a bender, I'll be back.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
By your argument there is no liberty where there is taxation.

Liberty is the wrong word to use when an otherwise peaceful person etc. is placed under duress and potential violence if other people force their choices on them. That's my argument and it's also a fact.

Alternatively, a person who makes a willing choice to fund something absent duress which people call "taxation" or any other term would not be losing their liberty, since that individual didn't have another person's choices forced on them.

So, it's possible a person could willingly pay a tax, a fee, a tuition, or whatever euphemism you want to use, and not in that instance be losing their liberty.

By your argument, apparently you like mixing up a hot bowl of liberty and add some coercion into it and say, "yum this liberty soup is delicious, it's so non contradicting" !
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
Liberty is the wrong word to use when an otherwise peaceful person etc. is placed under duress and potential violence if other people force their choices on them. That's my argument and it's also a fact.

Alternatively, a person who makes a willing choice to fund something absent duress which people call "taxation" or any other term would not be losing their liberty, since that individual didn't have another person's choices forced on them.

So, it's possible a person could willingly pay a tax, a fee, a tuition, or whatever euphemism you want to use, and not in that instance be losing their liberty.

By your argument, apparently you like mixing up a hot bowl of liberty and add some coercion into it and say, "yum this liberty soup is delicious, it's so non contradicting" !

Yes I live in the real world and am not in denial.

I'll use another word like freedom.

I didn't mean to offend you.
 
Top