Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Story of Your Enslavement

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 9:46:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Interesting video, although it seems a little vague (it doesn't just simply attack the left or the right as I'm accustomed). Does this guy have a point or is he full of sh11?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 9:54:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hey cool, someone else other than me is posting Molyneux videos!
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 9:57:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 9:46:18 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Interesting video, although it seems a little vague (it doesn't just simply attack the left or the right as I'm accustomed)
Yeah there's many worlds out there you're missing out on :)
Does this guy have a point or is he full of sh11?
I've heard this point of view many times. It's what I surround myself with; it's what I believe. Selective attentiveness, fringe style! I can't give you a conventional point of view.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 10:08:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
from what I saw... Full of it.

I think of most governments as unconscious actors... theirs no good reason to suggest there's a small group of Profiteers running Govt...

It's much less sexy than that... It's just that there's a lot of stupid people... and a lot of ridiculous people who get elected from a largely uninformed electorate.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 10:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's a video the same guy made earlier on the same idea. I prefer this one, it's more clear to me.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 10:56:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 10:08:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
from what I saw... Full of it.

I think of most governments as unconscious actors... theirs no good reason to suggest there's a small group of Profiteers running Govt...

It's much less sexy than that... It's just that there's a lot of stupid people... and a lot of ridiculous people who get elected from a largely uninformed electorate.

The Illuminati are not profiteers. They control the money system.

Famous Illuminist, Mayer Rothschild, said "Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2010 11:12:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, the thesis of the video is flawed. If all humans are afraid of death and afraid of losing future liberties, then what separates the ruling class from the rabble? Certainly, there is more to it than that. It's not "human nature" for there to be the manipulators and the manipulated.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 8:45:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow. I'm actually really glad I saw this video.

Are these the philosophies that you support, Rez? I think these were some of the points you touched upon in that other topic, but I didn't really *get*.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:24:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Bilerburgs and ruthchilds created the ideas like global warming to justify green nazi gastapo police..!
Create healthcare to start population control..! Etc.
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 11:58:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 8:45:29 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Wow. I'm actually really glad I saw this video.

Are these the philosophies that you support, Rez? I think these were some of the points you touched upon in that other topic, but I didn't really *get*.

I believe [what I think] is presented in those videos, yes :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 12:01:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/30/2010 11:12:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, the thesis of the video is flawed. If all humans are afraid of death and afraid of losing future liberties, then what separates the ruling class from the rabble? Certainly, there is more to it than that. It's not "human nature" for there to be the manipulators and the manipulated.
I think it's like, you know how some children are scared sh*tless when they first find out they're going to die, but most adults are just perfectly fine with the idea? The "ruling class" arose from those humans who first were able to cope with the fear of death. At least that's a possible explanation. I believe what you meant is the premise of the video is flawed - I don't agree with it particularly either, but I don't think it's the only way to support the thesis.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 3:34:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:32:40 PM, badger wrote:
good videos, but who're the farmers in a democracy?

Democracy is just another word for "privileged livestock".
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 3:35:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:32:40 PM, badger wrote:
good videos, but who're the farmers in a democracy?

The ruling class. Democracy is an illusion used by the farmers to make the livestock turn against itself rather than allow them to unite against their common enemy, the farmers.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 3:40:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:35:15 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:32:40 PM, badger wrote:
good videos, but who're the farmers in a democracy?

The ruling class. Democracy is an illusion used by the farmers to make the livestock turn against itself rather than allow them to unite against their common enemy, the farmers.

don't we elect the farmers though?
signature
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:40:35 PM, badger wrote:
don't we elect the farmers though?

This is mostly false.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 3:57:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:40:35 PM, badger wrote:
don't we elect the farmers though?

This is mostly false.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.

they should get rid of funding for parties.
signature
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:57:02 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:40:35 PM, badger wrote:
don't we elect the farmers though?

This is mostly false.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.

they should get rid of funding for parties.

They should get rid of parties.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.

You are now Geo 2.0
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:02:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:02:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.

You are now Geo 2.0

Actually, you're not as cool as Geo. 1.5
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:12:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:01:15 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:57:02 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/2/2010 3:40:35 PM, badger wrote:
don't we elect the farmers though?

This is mostly false.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

Whether a Republican or a Democrat or a Tory or a Liberal Dem wins, it doesn't make much of a difference to the farmers. There may be some factional struggle between the farmers themselves but for the most part the elections are a side show. A circus meant to create the illusion that the livestock are free.

they should get rid of funding for parties.

They should get rid of parties.

how would democracy work without them? getting rid of funding would get rid of the farmers wouldn't it?
signature
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:17:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Parties are pretty much phasing out already. It's why campaigns and elections these days are about the actual man or woman running, and less about which party they're from. (You'd have to know a little history to get this; in the past the party mattered much more than who exactly was going to be running from it.)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:25:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:17:43 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Parties are pretty much phasing out already. It's why campaigns and elections these days are about the actual man or woman running, and less about which party they're from. (You'd have to know a little history to get this; in the past the party mattered much more than who exactly was going to be running from it.)

I have to disagree. Westminster systems are designed to have the individual candidate meaning more than the party. That's shifted over the years, where now the party more often than not means more than the individual candidate. Leaders also factor more into voting decisions now too. It longer ends up that "Gerry Brietkreuz MP calls for Opposition Leader to be beaten," it's "Conservative MP wants Liberal Leader beaten."
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:26:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:25:47 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/2/2010 4:17:43 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Parties are pretty much phasing out already. It's why campaigns and elections these days are about the actual man or woman running, and less about which party they're from. (You'd have to know a little history to get this; in the past the party mattered much more than who exactly was going to be running from it.)

I have to disagree. Westminster systems are designed to have the individual candidate meaning more than the party. That's shifted over the years, where now the party more often than not means more than the individual candidate. Leaders also factor more into voting decisions now too. It longer ends up that "Gerry Brietkreuz MP calls for Opposition Leader to be beaten," it's "Conservative MP wants Liberal Leader beaten."

Talkin' bout Amerikkka mang.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:30:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:26:31 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Talkin' bout Amerikkka mang.

I don't really see the party-line dying either. I suppose your case is that since Americans focus so much more on Presidential campaigns and the individual candidate, it's a sign. However, it's still a "Democratic President," or a "Republican President." And in legislative elections, unless the incumbent or candidate is really exceptional, for better or for worse, people still vote by party more often than not.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 5:01:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:12:13 PM, badger wrote:
how would democracy work without them? getting rid of funding would get rid of the farmers wouldn't it?

So long as there are positions of power, there will be farmers. If we give them the means to control or regulate the livelihood of others, then we give them he means to control or regulate our livelihood as well. The only option is to remove those positions of power.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
wolfgangxx
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 1:19:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sorry but this is complete and utter BS and I am surprised that anyone bought into it - perhaps it because this theory taps into our ingrained distrust of authority?

Governments are there for a reason. Imagine we had no government and everybody was "free": there would be rampant crime since there are no police; people would die of the most common illnesses since only people who knew and were in favour with doctors would get treatment; within two or three generations over half the population would be considered mentally retarded by today's standards because they and their parents have received no schooling at all.

There is no ruling class, there are upper and middle and working classes (though today the boundaries are so blurred that it almost impossible to distinguish between two consecutive classes e.g middle and working or upper and middle). If this theory was correct then it should be almost impossible for members of the "cattle" to become "farmers" - but, the move from working class to upper class can be done very easily in two generations as long as the individuals are intelligent and try hard.

As for this idea that the farmers allow the cattle freedoms so that the farmers themselves can take from the cattle it is preposterous and simply does not apply in today's democracies. A hardworking plumber can earn as much as the PM of the UK although the plumber would be the cattle and the PM the king of the farmers - a senior surgeon can make twice as much as the PM and almost 3 times as much as any senior politician. A successful buisnessman - or even a footballer - can easily have 10 or 100 times the wealth of a "farmer".

But you may say that the "farmers" still do take money from the "cattle" that does not belong to the "farmers" at all. Well look where your tax money goes, yes a small minority of it ends up in the "farmers" pocket in the form of PAY for their JOB but as I already pointed out anyone with talent can easily earn more than a politician, however the majority of it ends up in things that benifit the general population - free education; policing; healthcare (in the UK); a justice system.
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 1:26:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 1:19:21 PM, wolfgangxx wrote:
I'm sorry but this is complete and utter BS and I am surprised that anyone bought into it - perhaps it because this theory taps into our ingrained distrust of authority?

Governments are there for a reason. Imagine we had no government and everybody was "free": there would be rampant crime since there are no police; people would die of the most common illnesses since only people who knew and were in favour with doctors would get treatment; within two or three generations over half the population would be considered mentally retarded by today's standards because they and their parents have received no schooling at all.

Haha. The anarchists and libertarians on this site are gonna love you mate.

You are 100% correct of course.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 1:37:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 1:19:21 PM, wolfgangxx wrote:
Governments are there for a reason.
To screw you over.
Imagine we had no government and everybody was "free":
It'd be great :D
there would be rampant crime since there are no police;
Now that's just "complete and utter BS". Why do police only exist if the state does?
people would die of the most common illnesses since only people who knew and were in favour with doctors would get treatment;
...then people would get to know doctors and get into favor with them! lol, you've clearly never heard about how the medical system worked prior to licensing.
within two or three generations over half the population would be considered mentally retarded by today's standards because they and their parents have received no schooling at all.
lol a person who believes intelligence is endowed upon people by mandatory education. This is rich.

There is no ruling class,
Prove it :D
there are upper and middle and working classes (though today the boundaries are so blurred that it almost impossible to distinguish between two consecutive classes e.g middle and working or upper and middle).
Yeah, that's because they're the same class, just in different shades.
If this theory was correct then it should be almost impossible for members of the "cattle" to become "farmers"
And what makes you believe that isn't true?
- but, the move from working class to upper class can be done very easily in two generations as long as the individuals are intelligent and try hard.
So what you're saying is most people aren't intelligent and don't try hard?

As for this idea that the farmers allow the cattle freedoms so that the farmers themselves can take from the cattle it is preposterous
.....how long have you been debating politics outside the left-right paradigm, sir?
and simply does not apply in today's democracies. A hardworking plumber can earn as much as the PM of the UK
Papers can say anything. There are doctors who have higher salaries than Warren Buffet (His salary is 100k). Do you honestly believe they "earn" the same amount?
although the plumber would be the cattle and the PM the king of the farmers - a senior surgeon can make twice as much as the PM and almost 3 times as much as any senior politician. A successful buisnessman - or even a footballer - can easily have 10 or 100 times the wealth of a "farmer".
Do you believe having more dollars is the same as having more power?

But you may say that the "farmers" still do take money from the "cattle" that does not belong to the "farmers" at all. Well look where your tax money goes, yes a small minority of it ends up in the "farmers" pocket in the form of PAY for their JOB
Uh huh. Kind of like how a small minority of extortion money for the mafia goes into mafioso's pockets because they have to get paid in order for them to want to come over and take your cash. Doesn't particularly matter whether or not it's for their job. I'm sure some of the money I paid for my bag of Chex mix went into a CEO's pocket "in the form of PAY for their JOB" too. But what separates

And that's not even getting into some statistics, like how out of every dollar that is supposedly for welfare, 70% is for "transaction costs" aka "PAYing for the bureaucracy's EMPLOYEES" and some portion of the remaining 30% actually goes into the poor's hands. And that's not even considering how welfare work, how it randomly stops sending you the check every once in a while. Is that a system you'd support? If you bought, I dunno, let's say a computer mouse, and the bill was 100 dollars, would you be happy if you found out $70 of that was for shipping and handling? Would that opinion change if you knew it came from "THE" government?

but as I already pointed out anyone with talent can easily earn more than a politician, however the majority of it ends up in things that benifit the general population - free education;
Forced education.
policing;
This is accurate. The citizens are being stolen from for others to police them.
healthcare (in the UK);
I don't know how to rename this one.
a justice system.
A Bullsh!t system.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 1:41:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Apparently I didn't finish my thought
Uh huh. Kind of like how a small minority of extortion money for the mafia goes into mafioso's pockets because they have to get paid in order for them to want to come over and take your cash. Doesn't particularly matter whether or not it's for their job. I'm sure some of the money I paid for my bag of Chex mix went into a CEO's pocket "in the form of PAY for their JOB" too. But what separates
the two is that one is forced, and the other is not. If I don't pay for one, nothing really ever happens. If I don't pay for the other, I'll get things like what you see in the video.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?