"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Although I believe not all democrats are liberals and, not all republicans are conservatives; for my 2 cents I also believe most democrats are socialists and most republicans are conservative.
Either way, Acer, the quote you submitted was certainly prescient, wasn't it.
Although I believe not all democrats are liberals and, not all republicans are conservatives; for my 2 cents I also believe most democrats are socialists and most republicans are conservative.
Either way, Acer, the quote you submitted was certainly prescient, wasn't it.
After Egypt was absorbed into the Islamic world, it surrendered sovereignty under multi-Islamic monarchs, including the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of Ottoman (Turkish) rule in WW1, Britain endowed itself with political administration over Egypt before granting it independence, governed then by a king, until the early 50s. The last Egyptian king was overthrown by the military under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, his successor, Anwar Sadat, ruled until he was assassinated in the early 80s, which brought Mubarak (National Democratic Party), sponsored by Washington, to power immediately after, until his removal last year, when the position of affairs was no longer sustainable and it emerged, the populace in the East under Sunni Islam, were no longer fearful of their western sponsored rulers, as seen in Tunisia e.c.t., but a percentage of the populace in America (western society) under the sphere of democracy, became frightened by its leaders. Mubarak wasn’t overthrown by the hand of peaceful protestors; there was a foreign political hand, as has been the circumstance in Egypt since the fall of the New Kingdom when the final legitimate pharaoh was abolished by the Romans, which since then, has had foreign masters and not had an indigenous rule over it. The Tahrir uprising was not headed by secular democratic forces, instead Egypt returned to the exhausted old order of rule under the military, who went after the "businessmen's cabinet" of Ahmed Nazif that provided Egypt with the transient economic growth through relaxation of govt. restrictions in the areas of economic policy, when the military Junta was enthusiastic to assert its representatives with the people who abet Islamic diehards, forcing financiers out of the country and placing fear into the Coptic community.
To model such a debate on “peace” in this circumstance, even in the U.S., is worthless, because it requires an imaginary type of norm of perfection to be aimed at circumstances that have cipher to do with reality. Reality surfaces as the product of a particular fact, event or case. Is it not more beneficial to think in ways beyond a direction that endeavors to, explain, vindicate and consequently demand the prescribed ritual of satisfying desires (disarmament and peace movements), with imaginary treatment in comparative disregard of reality, otherwise, when grievances confront a set of circumstances that are not conceivable in a exposition of principles and formal thought, your process-style of thinking breaks down in the realms of disorder. The actual point of truth is that not all objects of thought that can be expressed in the mind, subsist, and can be applied in the real world. To simply focus on the end result (peace) and use it to permeate through the entire process of behavior along the way to achieving such political concession (desire), is simply not in working harmony with the agents of reality, unless one subscribes to the way of the technocrat. Any individual, who cannot see alternate means beyond a peaceful resistance, cannot see beyond party lines. Eastern philosophy thinks extremely different to Western philosophy; you simply cannot use Western philosophy to make any resemblance in essentials between movements that thinks in Eastern philosophy, as in the case of Egypt. African and Middle Eastern states who seek democracy, don’t necessarily clamor for Western-models of democracy to award equal rights to women or endow minorities with religious and sexual orientation freedoms.
The uniqueness of Washington’s anomalous lies beneath its exception, and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison. America is without a national disposition rooted in antiquity, but instead characterized by ideology and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison in reciprocal roles. This ideology-driven way of thinking has allowed the two-party system in the U.S., if combined, to not even represent in a comparison, a single political wing of democratic systems of commonwealth countries. This is the U.S., where citizenry begin any fight from a disadvantageous position, where corp. power can lobby the legal system to rally against judicial compassion towards being found not guilty or the lessening of sentencing and parole standards, which all jeopardize the corp. enterprise commerce of this fascist system that seek a thin layer of tolerance, that abets the current administration who empowered the C.I.A. counterterrorism operations to launch drone missiles outside the borders of war zones in Egypt, killing innocent civilians.
After Egypt was absorbed into the Islamic world, it surrendered sovereignty under multi-Islamic monarchs, including the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of Ottoman (Turkish) rule in WW1, Britain endowed itself with political administration over Egypt before granting it independence, governed then by a king, until the early 50s. The last Egyptian king was overthrown by the military under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, his successor, Anwar Sadat, ruled until he was assassinated in the early 80s, which brought Mubarak (National Democratic Party), sponsored by Washington, to power immediately after, until his removal last year, when the position of affairs was no longer sustainable and it emerged, the populace in the East under Sunni Islam, were no longer fearful of their western sponsored rulers, as seen in Tunisia e.c.t., but a percentage of the populace in America (western society) under the sphere of democracy, became frightened by its leaders. Mubarak wasn’t overthrown by the hand of peaceful protestors; there was a foreign political hand, as has been the circumstance in Egypt since the fall of the New Kingdom when the final legitimate pharaoh was abolished by the Romans, which since then, has had foreign masters and not had an indigenous rule over it. The Tahrir uprising was not headed by secular democratic forces, instead Egypt returned to the exhausted old order of rule under the military, who went after the "businessmen's cabinet" of Ahmed Nazif that provided Egypt with the transient economic growth through relaxation of govt. restrictions in the areas of economic policy, when the military Junta was enthusiastic to assert its representatives with the people who abet Islamic diehards, forcing financiers out of the country and placing fear into the Coptic community.
To model such a debate on “peace” in this circumstance, even in the U.S., is worthless, because it requires an imaginary type of norm of perfection to be aimed at circumstances that have cipher to do with reality. Reality surfaces as the product of a particular fact, event or case. Is it not more beneficial to think in ways beyond a direction that endeavors to, explain, vindicate and consequently demand the prescribed ritual of satisfying desires (disarmament and peace movements), with imaginary treatment in comparative disregard of reality, otherwise, when grievances confront a set of circumstances that are not conceivable in a exposition of principles and formal thought, your process-style of thinking breaks down in the realms of disorder. The actual point of truth is that not all objects of thought that can be expressed in the mind, subsist, and can be applied in the real world. To simply focus on the end result (peace) and use it to permeate through the entire process of behavior along the way to achieving such political concession (desire), is simply not in working harmony with the agents of reality, unless one subscribes to the way of the technocrat. Any individual, who cannot see alternate means beyond a peaceful resistance, cannot see beyond party lines. Eastern philosophy thinks extremely different to Western philosophy; you simply cannot use Western philosophy to make any resemblance in essentials between movements that thinks in Eastern philosophy, as in the case of Egypt. African and Middle Eastern states who seek democracy, don’t necessarily clamor for Western-models of democracy to award equal rights to women or endow minorities with religious and sexual orientation freedoms.
The uniqueness of Washington’s anomalous lies beneath its exception, and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison. America is without a national disposition rooted in antiquity, but instead characterized by ideology and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison in reciprocal roles. This ideology-driven way of thinking has allowed the two-party system in the U.S., if combined, to not even represent in a comparison, a single political wing of democratic systems of commonwealth countries. This is the U.S., where citizenry begin any fight from a disadvantageous position, where corp. power can lobby the legal system to rally against judicial compassion towards being found not guilty or the lessening of sentencing and parole standards, which all jeopardize the corp. enterprise commerce of this fascist system that seek a thin layer of tolerance, that abets the current administration who empowered the C.I.A. counterterrorism operations to launch drone missiles outside the borders of war zones in Egypt, killing innocent civilians.
The Berlin War was not built to keep capitalists from getting in.
The Berlin War was not built to keep capitalists from getting in.
I'm with you buddy
I'm not compromising my beliefs to vote for someone that may have a better chance at winning(Romney or Obama). I don't view a vote for Paul as a wasted vote, as so many do. I view it as a statement and my voice being heard.
I want to be able to say I tried my best even if Romney or Obama win. I want to be able to say I didn't vote for this when nothing changes.
I'm with you buddy
I'm not compromising my beliefs to vote for someone that may have a better chance at winning(Romney or Obama). I don't view a vote for Paul as a wasted vote, as so many do. I view it as a statement and my voice being heard.
I want to be able to say I tried my best even if Romney or Obama win. I want to be able to say I didn't vote for this when nothing changes.
(POST #87)
(POST #87)
I'm with you buddy
I'm not compromising my beliefs to vote for someone that may have a better chance at winning(Romney or Obama). I don't view a vote for Paul as a wasted vote, as so many do. I view it as a statement and my voice being heard.
I want to be able to say I tried my best even if Romney or Obama win. I want to be able to say I didn't vote for this when nothing changes.
I'm with you buddy
I'm not compromising my beliefs to vote for someone that may have a better chance at winning(Romney or Obama). I don't view a vote for Paul as a wasted vote, as so many do. I view it as a statement and my voice being heard.
I want to be able to say I tried my best even if Romney or Obama win. I want to be able to say I didn't vote for this when nothing changes.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.