Joe Biden's Anthony Blinkin and the Ashkenazi Jewish Mafia

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Froglich 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

For both of you: why would anyone respond to attacks?

Please allow me to respond to your disgusting hypocrisy with your own comment.

If you have an argument for me, write to me directly, rather than type this cowardice nonsense to someone else. Man up.

Then you inexplicably cry "mod abuse" below, as if.
If you think I'd ban you, then you're probably delusional.
I'm an extreme free speech advocate. Literally the opposite, of an abusive mod.

I'm a pragmatist, and I suspect you're probably donating to the site, which is great.
That's a meaningfully contribution to Saidit, and I have no intention of doing anything harmful to the site.

There are plenty of shills here who don't donate. So, you have a leg up on them in that respect.

Conversely, these shills seldom disgrace themselves by crying wolf about "mod abuse".

Nobody has to tell them to:

Man up.

I'm conclusion, my strong recommendation to you is to take your own advice.

If you have an argument for me, write to me directly, rather than type this cowardice nonsense to someone else. Man up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Again - your posts included insults/attacks, so I have absolutely no interest in discussing anything with you. It's that simple.

[–]Froglich 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're a cowardly shill, and your arguments have been demolished.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Frog don't insult other users. Your post above was more than enough for socks to resposne and he/she did.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How does this help the conversation?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How does never walking away help the conversation?

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

He called you a party stooge, which is low teir but his opinion. His subsequent comments were well argued.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You're missing his other attacks. You're also missing one of the trends on Saidit: someone posts comments to me that include insults, and when they're questionioned about the insults, they post another comment without insults, as if that should get a response from me (if there's an apology I do respond, however). Anyone with a grain of self-respect will want to avoid the person making the insults. Yes, in the past - only when one dragged the discourse down the pyramid - would I respond at the same level. Now with mods who favor the person who drags down the discourse, whilst warning the person who responds at that new level, this is not a place for engaging with anyone who prefers insults. I can do so and get banned, but I have one question for DAR I'd like to ask first - perhaps at the weekend. A mod for DAR recommended I ask it. Regarding our shared concerns for Palestinians and for Americans, they - like us - should also avoid people who lack respect. For a debate to be possible at Saidit, there should be a minimum level of civility. You cannot see the full list of insults against me at Saidit, though if you could, you would never assume that I should respond to those people. Most of it doesn't matter, but it's really unfortunate when I am told that I should respond to one of these people. The new mod arrangements will get me banned, which should wait until next week.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're missing his other attacks.

Like?

I'll message him and ask him to stop. I'm sure he'll stop. Again, his last post was well intentioend and you could have countered his arguments but instead whinned about the alt-right. Ignore him, block him or post sources to counter his arguments.

You're also missing one of the trends on Saidit: someone posts comments to me that include insults, and when they're questionioned about the insults, they post another comment without insults, as if that should get a response from me (if there's an apology I do respond, however).

Well, then they learned from their overly emotional resposne and posted agaom without ad hominems. That should be appreciated. Respond to the user or ignore the user. Insults do not get immediate bans but those who continue to post insults over and over again and bring no arguments to the table will be banned.

Anyone with a grain of self-respect will want to avoid the person making the insults.

Then ignore him.

Now with mods who favor the person who drags down the discourse, whilst warning the person who responds at that new level, this is not a place for engaging with anyone who prefers insults.

I didn't pick a side. I said to Frog not to post ad hominems. I don't favor anyone here. I do find some of your arguments, such as your mention of the alt-right, off topic.

I can do so and get banned, but I have one question for DAR I'd like to ask first...

You got banned and Jason got banned.

A mod for DAR recommended I ask it.

Who's DAR?

Regarding our shared concerns for Palestinians and for Americans, they - like us - should also avoid people who lack respect.

No, you should engage with those who lack respect and be the better person. Do not be offended.

For a debate to be possible at Saidit, there should be a minimum level of civility.

Indeed, so ignore th user or debunk his arguments. Forget about his initial insults, the post where he posted sources had no insults against you, countering his claims.

You cannot see the full list of insults against me at Saidit, though if you could, you would never assume that I should respond to those people.

I openly posted the full insults against me on saidit, most from JIDF and pro-Israel agents. I'm fine with it. If you have evidence of major insults over and over again by a specific user please send evidence.

Most of it doesn't matter, but it's really unfortunate when I am told that I should respond to one of these people. The new mod arrangements will get me banned, which should wait until next week.

I don't think you'll be banned. You have been here for awhile. I won't ban you, I have no reason to.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Jesus - WTF. I ignored him, you told me to respond, and now you tell me to ignore him, and that I should respond to abusive people. (I told him that I would ignore him. My comment prompted you to order me to respond to him. I kindly explained to you why I would not respond. Now you advise that I should ignore him. WTF.) I appreciate your concern, if you are concerned. I never really know what you prefer in the responses to you because you do not upvote much of anything. There's of course no need for either of us to bother Frog. I've never been banned at Saidit. I am not posting here the responses I've received from people, which one can see in their respective threads (though not as a list of responses). DAR = Debate the Right. Absoultely no one should be expected to engage with people who lack respect (I obviously don't care if people don't 'like' me, but the discourse has to be on the upper end of the pyramid of debate, per the site rules, and this is a form of 'respect' and civility, and often ignored by a high percentage of those who respond to me with insults). I explained the reasons for this to you several times. It's the definition of an abusive relationship, one that a narcissist wants. It's strange to me that you don't see this. (I have responded to disrespectful people quite often on Saidit, but I certainly don't have to do so, by any standard of expectation.)

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I said either ignore him or respond and debunk his claims on his 2nd none fallacious post. I already messaged him telling him not to spew insults.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. I'll comment more at Saidit soon, perhaps after a few drinks. :-)

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Also, what did you think about my message on how US corp is a corporation? You have yet to get back to me. I gave you sources for you to take a look at because US corp is not a democracy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I responded to your comment, mentioning the standard definition of 'representative democracy'.

I had thought we discussed this earlier. Indeed, most colonial enterprises in the 16th - early 19th centuries were incorporated. There are aspects of those corporate arrangements that continue today.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I gave you sources showing you that congress is incorporated in the jurisdiction of the district of Columbia for a for-profit quasi-public/private corporation known as US inc. which has been wholly captured by private corporate interests that seek to destroy local governments that have mostly been captured and incorporated.

The US is not a representative democracy. Disregarding charter documents showing what the US 'government' really is, case in point: Chisholm vs. Gerogia 1793; it is a corporation, ie. Charter republic. Needless to say, for-profit corporation GOP and thrh DNC select candidates, which is illegal for the EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF US CORP. Voting for this is not representative democracy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes - I read portions of those sources, and I recall we discussed this earlier. Perhaps the impasse here is that I am refering to what the US government calls itself, and you are referring to what it has been for centuries, according to earlier charters. I appreciate that the US government's self-identification could be misleading, or even false, given what we know about the earlier charters, and the means by which corporations currently controll numerous political decisions. On this latter issue, I would add that this corporate control developed with the expansion of professional lobbying in the early 1980s and thereafter. Recall that Obama planned to reduce the influence of lobbyists and career politicians, but found that he couldn't. Trump offered the same arrangement when he said he'd drain the swamp. During his presidency, the Hill became much more corrupt, especially amongs his family members. But I digress. Yes, the operation of the US Government is much like that of a corporation, and can relate to its earlier charters. Money in politics, however, has evolved at a rapid rate in the past 40 years, and resembles the corrupt governance of the late 19th century and into the early 20th century.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whatever the US government calls itself, is not WHAT IT IS. It is what it is on THEIR books. It's like Stalin calling his system a democratic utopia but on the books, it also was a corporation. The earlier charters still hold up today. There's no difference from back then to today.

Samuel Adams:

Anyone who against the republic (charter corp.) should face severe repercussions.

Association Inc, ie. congress LLC created the charter corporation known as US Inc., which is where congress resides, on the books in US Inc land. A quick search of say Rand Paul will show he is traded on teh D and B database as REP. RAND PAUL. Association Inc., was literally an offshoot of the East India Company as is the Massachusets Bay corporation. The revolutionists won, made a truce with the British, the colonists and indentured servants lost, and then they hired mercenaries to stop Shay's rebellion.

With that being said, yes, today, the US corp is still a corporation but private for-profit interests have captured it by the mammon worshiping in congress so it serves private for-profit interests almost entirely. For instance, the founders, though they sought to protect their interests and assets at teh expense of the British and colonists, they understaood that chain corporations would lead to poverty and food stamps. Look where we are now.

Recall that Obama planned to reduce the influence of lobbyists and career politicians, but found that he couldn't.

Wrong, he didn't find that he couldn't he was brought up by CIA handlers and the Chicago Chabad Lubavitch mafia to become president. He willingly bailed out wallstreet.

Trump offered the same arrangement when he said he'd drain the swamp. During his presidency, the Hill became much more corrupt, especially amongs his family members.

Obviously, he like every politician that has billions of dollars in corporate moeny and banks backing him will do the opposite of what he lies to promise every time, ad infinitum.

Yes, the operation of the US Government is much like that of a corporation, and can relate to its earlier charters. Money in politics, however, has evolved at a rapid rate in the past 40 years, and resembles the corrupt governance of the late 19th century and into the early 20th century.

The US government isn't even a government. It is a board of incorporated memebers (congress LLC) of US Inc. Real governments are local and unincorporated, which are markedly rare today. Think of teh US as a wallmart and Israel as a crappy Denny's with weapons.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you.

Is there a scholarly monograph on this subject of the US corporate charters and their applicability after the 18th century?