Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There has been a bit of discussion, I thought I would clear up a few questions. First off Ashley, by all means, let's put your private education against mine which came from one of the worst public schools in one of the worst states in in the union, my education is a result of my curiosity are you a curious person Ashley? Want us to find out?

 

Most people don't think about Monarchy very much, except when they are dreaming of their Prince Charming, (Ashley r u there?), I should not do this but I find showing an open is a good way to get things started, so I will share that I have spent a few years doing some "inside work" so I tend to see the ego as an issue in most things and I feel it makes people for the most part to underestimate others, I believe people tend to look at history like they do their own lives and they think the world has "grown up" that we have out grown concepts of divine appointment to power. I believe this is dismissive of thousands of years of political systems. I believe that conservatives are in part driven by the concept that those with wealth should be allowed to use that wealth because they have it. That people offering reasoned positions to the contrary are interfering in some way with the natural order which deemed that "they", not "you" possess the money, often expressed as "It's not your money!" Furthermore the current ruling class operates as Monarchies always have, to hold and consolidate power through marriage. Please refer to Born Rich, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY if your teachers didn't teach you about this, or you are not really that curious.

 

As far as my reference to "death tax" and "flat tax" (you miss that one Ashley? I apologize if you have a learning disability which caused you to miss it, I wouldn't want to be rude.) I have read 1984 and I am not afraid to take the battle to the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting film despite a lack of depth.

 

These young heirs live in a world apart and they know it. They're most comfortable in the company of their peers. Their problems and interests are so esoteric. Hence, participation in sports like fencing and equestrian pursuits. For the most part, they don't want to be reminded of their privilege by have-nots who might try to invoke guilt. Not sure whether it's how the film was edited, but, not surprisingly, most of them are preoccupied with all the choices they have which ordinary peeps can only fantasize about.... Where in the world to travel next. How to occupy oneself. Whether to indulge in extravagant purchases they know aren't worth it.

 

One guy said he worked on an oil rig and enjoyed it. Claimed he feels better doing hard work. Interestingly, he only worked on the rig for a while.

 

I would have liked to hear their thoughts beyond just their station in life..... Politics.... Their love lives..... Religion..... Foreign and domestic affairs. I would have liked to hear more about how they view their servants, although talking about it would probably make most of them uncomfortable.... I would be in their shoes. It would have been interesting to see if some of them did mundane chores, if any, like the dishes, laundry or cleaning. I doubt it, but who knows?

 

The filmmaker himself is from that world, so how could he be objective about it? He must share certain biases and assumptions common to his class, of which he may not even be aware. Then again, it probably allowed him ingress an outsider wouldn't get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting film despite a lack of depth.

 

These young heirs live in a world apart and they know it. They're most comfortable in the company of their peers. Their problems and interests are so esoteric. Hence, participation in sports like fencing and equestrian pursuits. For the most part, they don't want to be reminded of their privilege by have-nots who might try to invoke guilt. Not sure whether it's how the film was edited, but, not surprisingly, most of them are preoccupied with all the choices they have which ordinary peeps can only fantasize about.... Where in the world to travel next. How to occupy oneself. Whether to indulge in extravagant purchases they know aren't worth it.

 

One guy said he worked on an oil rig and enjoyed it. Claimed he feels better doing hard work. Interestingly, he only worked on the rig for a while.

 

I would have liked to hear their thoughts beyond just their station in life..... Politics.... Their love lives..... Religion..... Foreign and domestic affairs. I would have liked to hear more about how they view their servants, although talking about it would probably make most of them uncomfortable.... I would be in their shoes. It would have been interesting to see if some of them did mundane chores, if any, like the dishes, laundry or cleaning. I doubt it, but who knows?

 

The filmmaker himself is from that world, so how could he be objective about it? He must share certain biases and assumptions common to his class, of which he may not even be aware. Then again, it probably allowed him ingress an outsider wouldn't get.

 

I generally don't watch Youtube videos linked by anonymous Internet posters, but it's interesting that your description of the film largely confirms my impression that what is remarkable about current level of inequality in the US is not just its extraordinary magnitude, but the state of hyper-segregation far beyond anything that existed in the past, even under ludicrously unequal systems like American slavery or Russian serfdom...

 

I mean, if you think about it, those systems require a level of direct, even intimate, contact between the richest and the poorest...but now the rich are able to use their wealth to fund lifestyles in which they hardly have to interact with or even think about the unwashed masses at all.

 

Sort of scary stuff when put in that light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally don't watch Youtube videos linked by anonymous Internet posters,

 

But this seemed extraordinary to me. Even though much of the content of the video is so shallow as to be pablum-grade, gossip-column fodder, it came from actual interviews of the heirs themselves! As you indicated, it's rare to get any kind of first-hand glimpse into the carefully cloistered world of the idle heirs of the ultra-rich. Probably only a trusted insider could have pulled it off. But after the film went public, despite the blandness of the material, he got (unsuccessfully) sued for defamation of character anyway.

 

 

but it's interesting that your description of the film largely confirms my impression that what is remarkable about current level of inequality in the US is not just its extraordinary magnitude, but the state of hyper-segregation far beyond anything that existed in the past, even under ludicrously unequal systems like American slavery or Russian serfdom...

 

I mean, if you think about it, those systems require a level of direct, even intimate, contact between the richest and the poorest...but now the rich are able to use their wealth to fund lifestyles in which they hardly have to interact with or even think about the unwashed masses at all.

 

Sort of scary stuff when put in that light.

 

Very true. It's a phenomenon without historical antecedent. Except maybe for the highest royalty, insulated from the multitudes by layers of lesser aristocracy.

 

The comments below the video range from fascination and approval to instant rage and hate. Personally, I don't feel any hate at all for these people. But I do agree with the OP that this lopsided social situation must be rectified by taxes which fairly reflect income. I don't know if it's unreasonable for these idle rich kids to be required to devote time for community service for the poor.... If for nothing else than to expose them to realities they haven't experienced themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe people tend to look at history like they do their own lives and they think the world has "grown up" that we have out grown concepts of divine appointment to power. I believe this is dismissive of thousands of years of political systems. I believe that conservatives are in part driven by the concept that those with wealth should be allowed to use that wealth because they have it. That people offering reasoned positions to the contrary are interfering in some way with the natural order which deemed that "they", not "you" possess the money, often expressed as "It's not your money!"

 

Precisely. Also, many Conservatives feel most comfortable in a world where each person knows their place and doesn't try to upset what is seen as 'the natural social order'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I do agree with the OP that this lopsided social situation must be rectified by taxes which fairly reflect income.

 

 

I think it's going to need to go much beyond that. We need to redesign the country to be integrative, rather than segregated...I think the primary instrument of segregation is urban development. You need to change the development paradigm before you can begin to tackle the segregation.

 

I don't know if it's unreasonable for these idle rich kids to be required to devote time for community service for the poor.... If for nothing else than to expose them to realities they haven't experienced themselves.

 

 

 

I think it will have to go deeper. And I think it goes the other way--most people in this country think it is a lot more equal than it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's going to need to go much beyond that. We need to redesign the country to be integrative, rather than segregated...I think the primary instrument of segregation is urban development. You need to change the development paradigm before you can begin to tackle the segregation.

 

 

I think it will have to go deeper. And I think it goes the other way--most people in this country think it is a lot more equal than it actually is.

 

Excellent points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Contradiction in terms" or "oxymoron" would have been better.

Regardless, this is a quibble. You know what I mean. The Republican Party is not a republican party.

 

You began by saying "Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair.... they are not actually republicans."

 

And now more recently, you've admitted "private government" is a contradiction in terms.

 

So... no, I don't know what you mean. Furthermore, you don't know what you mean.

 

And I hope your meaning isn't supposed to be like how you drew an analogy some time ago, between expecting terrorism from muslim migrants in europe because they are poor, with the fact that the sun rises each morning lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your're making a mountain out of a molehill, at least.

 

That's rich coming from you. This all got started when you took it upon yourself to answer a question I was asking factsrfun.

 

Whether they responded directly to the OP or not, any explanation of the OP's content, on their part, would have been gratuitous.

 

So what? I'm not contesting the gratuitous nature of their posts. I'm saying they were irrelevant to the OP... because they were irrelevant to the OP. Lol...

 

It's a "mountain" for you because you are stuck defending something that's indefensible :D

 

The original OP can be easily understood by anyone. Just because no one commented directly about it, is no indication that they didn't grasp what the OP said.

 

It's no indication that they DID grasp what the op said either. But if you can vouch for the former, why are you having difficulty even understanding the latter??? The answer is turf protection mode :)

 

Lots of things happen. At least you know what "happens" after it happened.

 

.... ooookay

 

Do you give psychic readings?

 

....ooookay.... talking for talking sake now. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a bit of discussion.

 

You can thank me for that, sherlock.... even while you go on to deride me. This thread was dead in the water for a couple years no?

 

Observation is not your forte is it lol

 

First off Ashley, by all means, let's put your private education against mine which came from one of the worst public schools in one of the worst states in in the union...

 

No let's not. I don't think that where one goes to school reflects on one's knowledge or ability.

 

Presumably, you think it does? Or you think I think it does? Because you like stereotypes?

 

Most people don't think about Monarchy very much, except when they are dreaming of their Prince Charming, (Ashley r u there?), I should not do this but I find showing an open is a good way to get things started, so I will share that I have spent a few years doing some "inside work" so I tend to see the ego as an issue in most things and I feel it makes people for the most part to underestimate others, I believe people tend to look at history like they do their own lives and they think the world has "grown up" that we have out grown concepts of divine appointment to power.

 

You should shorten your sentences. They run on and on. But yes, I'm here, why wouldnt I be

 

I believe that conservatives are in part driven by the concept that those with wealth should be allowed to use that wealth because they have it.

 

.. "in part" yes. Everyone is "in part" driven by the idea they ought to use their own wealth. Even YOU are "in part" driven by the idea, you said so in your op, remember?

 

That people offering reasoned positions to the contrary are interfering in some way with the natural order which deemed that "they", not "you" possess the money, often expressed as "It's not your money!" Furthermore the current ruling class operates as Monarchies always have, to hold and consolidate power through marriage. Please refer to Born Rich, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY if your teachers didn't teach you about this, or you are not really that curious.

 

That's it??? You watched a youtube video?? That was your "inside work"???

 

As far as my reference to "death tax" and "flat tax" (you miss that one Ashley? I apologize if you have a learning disability which caused you to miss it, I wouldn't want to be rude.)

 

Lol... you're a hoot factsrfun.

 

I did not miss 'flat tax'. I was simply telling you that your use of the term "death tax" is odd, because "death tax" is a right wing term for "estate tax". You cannot be this confused about little things can you?

 

 

I have read 1984 and I am not afraid to take the battle to the enemy.

 

.... good for you.

 

Haven't seen you in the No Holds Barred Forum.... where you're enemy.... presumably... exists.

 

Why is that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can thank me for that, sherlock.... even while you go on to deride me. This thread was dead in the water for a couple years no?

 

Observation is not your forte is it lol

 

 

No let's not. I don't think that where one goes to school reflects on one's knowledge or ability.

 

Presumably, you think it does? Or you think I think it does? Because you like stereotypes?

 

 

You should shorten your sentences. They run on and on. But yes, I'm here, why wouldnt I be

 

 

.. "in part" yes. Everyone is "in part" driven by the idea they ought to use their own wealth. Even YOU are "in part" driven by the idea, you said so in your op, remember?

 

 

That's it??? You watched a youtube video?? That was your "inside work"???

 

 

Lol... you're a hoot factsrfun.

 

I did not miss 'flat tax'. I was simply telling you that your use of the term "death tax" is odd, because "death tax" is a right wing term for "estate tax". You cannot be this confused about little things can you?

 

 

 

.... good for you.

 

Haven't seen you in the No Holds Barred Forum.... where you're enemy.... presumably... exists.

 

Why is that? :)

Care to pick this up in the NHB, unless of course it's too sourly for you there......I posted this there days ago, but i forget you went to special, err I mean private school....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's rich coming from you. This all got started when you took it upon yourself to answer a question I was asking factsrfun.

 

Speak only when spoken to? Ha ha ha. You sound like a Victoria schoolmarm in full indignation mode.

 

 

So what? I'm not contesting the gratuitous nature of their posts. I'm saying they were irrelevant to the OP... because they were irrelevant to the OP. Lol...

 

You're saying so 'cause your saying so? Once would have been enough you know? Practice what you preach? Guess not, reading this thread.

 

It's a "mountain" for you because you are stuck defending something that's indefensible :D

 

And it's a molehill for you because you're making molehill size points.

 

 

It's no indication that they DID grasp what the op said either. But if you can vouch for the former, why are you having difficulty even understanding the latter??? The answer is turf protection mode :)

 

"Turf" protection mode? Ha ha ha ha ha. Farfetched. But funny. Protection mode might be what you resort to. It's not merited in this exchange. Chances are they DID understand what the OP said. You seem to be in limbo.

 

 

 

Stop dancing. Slow down. Open your eyes.

 

....ooookay.... talking for talking sake now. Got it.^^^^^^^^

 

You want a reason to be thanked? Make a significant point about the subject. Declare where you stand, instead of sticking with insignificant criticism. Reveal your own political beliefs instead of petty nitpicking. Advocate a political position, maybe.

 

And take a break from repeating "why would I?"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AshleyXI, on 07 Dec 2015 - 5:23 PM, said:


"No let's not. I don't think that where one goes to school reflects on one's knowledge or ability.



Presumably, you think it does? Or you think I think it does? Because you like stereotypes?"



How conservative of you, you inject where you went to school then pretend like you didn't, just why did you point out that you went to private school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's rich coming from you. This all got started when you took it upon yourself to answer a question I was asking factsrfun.

 

Speak only when spoken to? Ha ha ha. You sound like a Victoria schoolmarm in full indignation mode.

 

Speak only when spoken too??? That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is you created your perceived mountain, and you're blaming me for it. Get it right.

 

Conversationally Challenged, evidence #1.

 

 

You're saying so 'cause your saying so? Once would have been enough you know? Practice what you preach? Guess not, reading this thread.

 

No, I was saying so because it's true. The first seven posts are irrelevant to the op. As such they do not demonstrate any understanding about the op. Very simple. I might be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say, ok they possibly/probably understood what the op was saying and they only just didnt give a rat's ass about furthering a conversation about it. I could do that, yes. I know.

 

But you have to keep dancing your jig now, so keep at it.

 

Conversationally challenged, evidence #2.

 

And it's a molehill for you because you're making molehill size points.

 

I didn't complain of anything being a mountain from a molehill. You did. Remember?

 

Conversationally challenged, evidence #3.

 

 

"Turf" protection mode? Ha ha ha ha ha. Farfetched. But funny. Protection mode might be what you resort to. It's not merited in this exchange. Chances are they DID understand what the OP said. You seem to be in limbo.

 

"I'm not doing it, you are!" That's your response here? Good one.

 

Whether chances are, or chances are not.... their posts are irrelevant to the op, and as such, demonstrate no understanding about the op.

 

 

Stop dancing. Slow down. Open your eyes.

 

....ooookay.... talking for talking sake now. Got it.^^^^^^^^

 

Hmm lets see. You are comparing me telling you to stop dancing that jig (sticking up for irrelevant responses to the op, which is directly relevant to our exchange)..... with you asking me sarcastically if I do psychic readings (which has no bearing on the exchange). And you think this comparison is valid. Good one.

 

Conversationally challenged, evidence #4

 

You want a reason to be thanked? Make a significant point about the subject. Declare where you stand, instead of sticking with insignificant criticism.

 

I don't -want- a reason to be thanked. Don't stretch what I was saying.... so you can have new things to talk about. And then go on to say that -I- make insignificant criticisms of poor old you and possibly factsrfun.

 

Declare where you stand.... Reveal your own political beliefs.... Advocate a political position, maybe.

 

Sounds good, in a better environment I might have by now. But WHY WOULD I here?? Given so many conversational challenges, it would be like talking to the wall, or less generously, to hamsters lol

 

 

You also don't type in large font. Are you becoming that fellow JimSouth in NHB or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say your teachers did a fine job of teaching you to count.

 

Yes they did. It was private school. Lol

 

First off Ashley, by all means, let's put your private education against mine which came from one of the worst public schools in one of the worst states in in the union, my education is a result of my curiosity

 

No let's not. I don't think that where one goes to school reflects on one's knowledge or ability.

 

Presumably, you think it does? Or you think I think it does? Because you like stereotypes?

 

How conservative of you, you inject where you went to school then pretend like you didn't, just why did you point out that you went to private school?

 

Genius, re-read our exchange about schooling.

 

It was you that poked fun at my schooling to start. Remember? I merely responded that I went to private school because I knew it would irk you. And of course it did.... to the point where you became a victim. Of course.

 

And now, you're saying that it is obviously a "conservative" trait to be "injecting" things while pretending not to be "injecting" things. Wow!

 

Conversationally Challenged, evidence #5

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people don't think about Monarchy very much, except when they are dreaming of their Prince Charming, (Ashley r u there?), I should not do this but I find showing an open is a good way to get things started, so I will share that I have spent a few years doing some "inside work" so I tend to see the ego as an issue in most things and I feel it makes people for the most part to underestimate others, I believe people tend to look at history like they do their own lives and they think the world has "grown up" that we have out grown concepts of divine appointment to power. I believe this is dismissive of thousands of years of political systems. I believe that conservatives are in part driven by the concept that those with wealth should be allowed to use that wealth because they have it. That people offering reasoned positions to the contrary are interfering in some way with the natural order which deemed that "they", not "you" possess the money, often expressed as "It's not your money!" Furthermore the current ruling class operates as Monarchies always have, to hold and consolidate power through marriage. Please refer to Born Rich, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY

Interesting film despite a lack of depth.

 

These young heirs live in a world apart and they know it. They're most comfortable in the company of their peers. Their problems and interests are so esoteric. Hence, participation in sports like fencing and equestrian pursuits. For the most part, they don't want to be reminded of their privilege by have-nots who might try to invoke guilt. Not sure whether it's how the film was edited, but, not surprisingly, most of them are preoccupied with all the choices they have which ordinary peeps can only fantasize about.... Where in the world to travel next. How to occupy oneself. Whether to indulge in extravagant purchases they know aren't worth it.

 

One guy said he worked on an oil rig and enjoyed it. Claimed he feels better doing hard work. Interestingly, he only worked on the rig for a while.

 

I would have liked to hear their thoughts beyond just their station in life..... Politics.... Their love lives..... Religion..... Foreign and domestic affairs. I would have liked to hear more about how they view their servants, although talking about it would probably make most of them uncomfortable.... I would be in their shoes. It would have been interesting to see if some of them did mundane chores, if any, like the dishes, laundry or cleaning. I doubt it, but who knows?

 

The filmmaker himself is from that world, so how could he be objective about it? He must share certain biases and assumptions common to his class, of which he may not even be aware. Then again, it probably allowed him ingress an outsider wouldn't get.

 

I generally don't watch Youtube videos linked by anonymous Internet posters, but it's interesting that your description of the film largely confirms my impression that what is remarkable about current level of inequality in the US is not just its extraordinary magnitude, but the state of hyper-segregation far beyond anything that existed in the past, even under ludicrously unequal systems like American slavery or Russian serfdom...

 

I mean, if you think about it, those systems require a level of direct, even intimate, contact between the richest and the poorest...but now the rich are able to use their wealth to fund lifestyles in which they hardly have to interact with or even think about the unwashed masses at all.

 

Sort of scary stuff when put in that light.

 

But this seemed extraordinary to me. Even though much of the content of the video is so shallow as to be pablum-grade, gossip-column fodder, it came from actual interviews of the heirs themselves! As you indicated, it's rare to get any kind of first-hand glimpse into the carefully cloistered world of the idle heirs of the ultra-rich. Probably only a trusted insider could have pulled it off. But after the film went public, despite the blandness of the material, he got (unsuccessfully) sued for defamation of character anyway.

 

Very true. It's a phenomenon without historical antecedent. Except maybe for the highest royalty, insulated from the multitudes by layers of lesser aristocracy.

 

The comments below the video range from fascination and approval to instant rage and hate. Personally, I don't feel any hate at all for these people. But I do agree with the OP that this lopsided social situation must be rectified by taxes which fairly reflect income. I don't know if it's unreasonable for these idle rich kids to be required to devote time for community service for the poor.... If for nothing else than to expose them to realities they haven't experienced themselves.

 

Precisely. Also, many Conservatives feel most comfortable in a world where each person knows their place and doesn't try to upset what is seen as 'the natural social order'.

 

I think it's going to need to go much beyond that. We need to redesign the country to be integrative, rather than segregated...I think the primary instrument of segregation is urban development. You need to change the development paradigm before you can begin to tackle the segregation.

 

I think it will have to go deeper. And I think it goes the other way--most people in this country think it is a lot more equal than it actually is.

 

Excellent points.

 

So AshleyXI. Do you have any thoughts about the actual content of the thread? Not petty nitpicking over who really affronted who. Not how you are always correct and everyone else is always wrong. Can you address the actual subject matter.

 

Why would I not be surprised if you said "Why would I"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You began by saying "Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair.... they are not actually republicans."

 

And now more recently, you've admitted "private government" is a contradiction in terms.

 

So... no, I don't know what you mean. Furthermore, you don't know what you mean.

 

And I hope your meaning isn't supposed to be like how you drew an analogy some time ago, between expecting terrorism from muslim migrants in europe because they are poor, with the fact that the sun rises each morning lol

 

I haven't admitted any such thing; as systems like feudalism and dynastic hereditary monarchy (as well as certain forms of modern corporatism) demonstrate, government can certainly be a private affair.

 

Viz. Muslim immigrants I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said anything like that.

 

And btw I assuredly do know what I mean. The Republicans largely want government by private corporations. This is not a republican ideology. The tension between public and private government is evident throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So AshleyXI. Do you have any thoughts about the actual content of the thread?

 

Actual content? My posts in this thread comprise the "content" just like anyone else's does. You didn't think of that, did you. No... too busy being a victim. What you meant to ask is.... do I have anything to say about the youtube video Factsrfun posted, or do I have anything to add to your's and asoka's commentary about the video.

 

Not petty nitpicking over who really affronted who.

 

Affronted? There you go stretching again. I haven't taken offence to anything here.

 

Not how you are always correct and everyone else is always wrong.

 

Always correct?? And everyone else is always wrong?? Stretch stretch stretch... because clearly, you're the victim and I'm just being nitpicky and annoying... lol.

 

Can you address the actual subject matter.

 

.... by which you mean the youtube video?

 

No I didnt watch it. It's about heirs to large fortunes and how they deal with opportunity cost.... I gather. Mmhh.. borrrrrrrring.

 

Pardon me for saying this. Too. I guess.

 

Why would I not be surprised if you said "Why would I"?

 

.... umm because I already said it? Lolol that was easy

 

Look, it has been more than a week now and nobody else has bothered with your "subject matter" aka that youtube video. So you cannot even pretend that I'm the stick in the mud anymore :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair (this is why they try to privatize the government and why they believe government should be run by big private money and private lobbyists a la Citizens United) they are not actually republicans.

 

Privatizing something removes it from government control, it ceases to be a governmental asset. "Privatized government" is a misnomer.

 

"Contradiction in terms" or "oxymoron" would have been better.

You know what I mean. The Republican Party is not a republican party.

 

You began by saying "Since the Republican Party believes government should be a private affair.... they are not actually republicans." And now more recently, you've admitted "private government" is a contradiction in terms.

 

So... no, I don't know what you mean. Furthermore, you don't know what you mean.

 

I haven't admitted any such thing; as systems like feudalism and dynastic hereditary monarchy (as well as certain forms of modern corporatism) demonstrate, government can certainly be a private affair.

 

We were talking about the (capital R) Republican party. This party exists in our liberal democratic system. Now you introduce different systems like monarchy to make your point the capital R Republican party (which exists in our liberal democratic system) can be infact be for "privatized government"??? .... even while.... you have already admitted "privatized government" is a "contradiction in terms".

 

If this is not the point you are trying to make. What is the point you are trying to make?

 

Bludogg likes to stretch.

 

You like to dodge.

 

And then there's factsrfun... who is soo factual and soo fun :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bludogg likes to stretch.

 

You like to dodge.

 

And then there's factsrfun... who is soo factual and soo fun :wacko:

 

And AshleyXI likes to confound issues by picking at real and imaginary flaws in other people's posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nitpicking flaws... lol... is that what you think I've been doing??

 

Whatever... have the last word

 

*sigh*

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

×