One for Amicus

[ishtat]

I don't know whether West Bengal or Tamil Nadu occupies his mind too often, but thought this article might give Amicus some comfort.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13374646

 

[rgraham666]

"This is a victory of democracy, victory of 'Maa, Maati Manush' [mother, land and people],"

That has a familiar ring to it.

 

[amicus]

I don't know whether West Bengal or Tamil Nadu occupies his mind too often, but thought this article might give Amicus some comfort.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13374646

~~~

Hello, Ishtat, and thank you, and no, I was not cognizant of that event.

I am puzzled concerning India, a former colony of the UK, but deeply religious, and Democracy...has become an issue of definition and semantics making it even more confused.

I assume, should search, that India, like the UK, lacks a Constitution, but has a Parliament and some undefineable and non absolute fundamental presumptions concerning how they are governed.

As the years for me accumulated slowly and almost without notice until nature forced me to acknowledge that I am now old, all the knowledge I have acquired over the years tends to condense into some very specific premises. I have fully expressed those premises thousands of times on this forum so I will not belabor them, but say only that human individual freedom and the protection of those innate, unalienable rights, as expressed by the documents of America, have become the defining characteristics in my deciding whether a nation is free or not free.

My philosophical and specifically, metaphysical observation is that human individual freedom is very, very tenuous and has been on the verge of collapse since it was first instituted.

Communism, and its prostitute mother, Socialism, are a disease of mankind, not unlike Cancer, to which we must find a cure.

Thank you for thinking of me.

ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ami tries his very best to deny us the right to care about other people's welfare. That's socialism, a denial of individual human rights.

Soon enough, nature will force him to acknowledge that he's no longer among the living. He'll be individually dead, which might be the most selfish possible state; uncaring about anyone else's happiness, no need for cooperation or understanding...

No taxes.

 

[amicus]

Are you really that blind? No one has ever wanted to deny you the right to care for the welfare of others; no one.

What some of us do advocate, is denying you the right to force others to care for the welfare of others.

I have a bunch of kids, a bunch of grand-kids, a the near future possiblity of bunch of great grand kids about to hit the skids. I help each according to my choice of who is deserving and who is not; the key words being, 'my choice'.

But then again, the only time individual choice' enters your vocabulary is when you want to butcher a baby.

go figure...

Amicus Veritas

 

[Stella_Omega]

No one has ever wanted to deny you the right to care for the welfare of others; no one.

Oh yeah-- you do.

What some of us do advocate, is denying you the right to force others to care for the welfare of others.

That's pretty concise, actually. And yeah, I think that's also pretty correct. Luckily there aren't nearly as many selfish pieces of shit like you in the world-- just a lot of brainwashed individuals.

But then again, the only time individual choice' enters your vocabulary is when you want to butcher a baby.

The only time you care about the welfare of others is when they are unborn. The minute they are-- nobody can force you to care about them any longer. But you want to force that baby to be born.

So, we might be on the same side in some odd way.

 

[amicus]

It is identified as an unalienable right to life, in the first part, and the unalienable right to liberty, freedom, in the second part. Not created by our laws, but acknowledged as innate and self evident.

You won't get it, but others may.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

It is identified as an unalienable right to life, in the first part, and the unalienable right to liberty, freedom, in the second part. Not created by our laws, but acknowledged as innate and self evident.

You won't get it, but others may.

Amicus Veritas

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


As an avowed atheist, you might want to credit your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to someone other than the Creator.

Taking a lead from the second sentence, you might consider those rights as coming from a government instituted among men (and unfortunately for you...women) which derives its power from the consent of the governed men...and women.

All of which says that rights are those freedoms demanded by the people of their elected government.

At one time, among those rights was the right to own slaves. As that ran afoul of the notion that all men are created equal and have the right to liberty...no more right to own slaves.

Another problem you have with your country is that all those rights of men are now also rights of women.

Women have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Bites, doesn't it, Ami?

You don't get it but the rest of us do.

 

[amicus]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


As an avowed atheist, you might want to credit your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to someone other than the Creator.

Taking a lead from the second sentence, you might consider those rights as coming from a government instituted among men (and unfortunately for you...women) which derives its power from the consent of the governed men...and women.

All of which says that rights are those freedoms demanded by the people of their elected government.

At one time, among those rights was the right to own slaves. As that ran afoul of the notion that all men are created equal and have the right to liberty...no more right to own slaves.

Another problem you have with your country is that all those rights of men are now also rights of women.

Women have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Bites, doesn't it, Ami?

You don't get it but the rest of us do.

~~~

I do not fault the Founders for the term, 'Creator', in the context of time, then, as now, people still turn to faith for inspiration and the sources of creation. There is less excuse for it now as rational, objective minds 'know' by definition that there is no God.

All of which says that rights are those freedoms demanded by the people of their elected government.

Here, you demonstrate your lack of understanding concerning the concept of human rights. Rights are not the product of a majority, they are those absolute aspects of human existence that define the species and as such, are objective and absolute and not to be tinkered with by the likes of you.

Each human being has the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit and all other rights are derivative, not fundamental.

On the lighter side, it would appear you have little experience with women. One more experienced would conclude that women are fortunate to have one rational week per month, with the week before, the week during and the week after being a roller coaster of uncontrollable emotions and hissy fits, not suitable for full inclusion in the rational world of men.

A wise man tolerates this rampant emotionalism for the few benefits that might arise, but also keeps the female in question away from sharp objects during that recurring three week period.

meh...

(even you might see the humor and self evident truth in that, eh?)

der amicus...

 

[stephen55]

One more experienced would conclude that women are fortunate to have one rational week per month, with the week before, the week during and the week after being a roller coaster of uncontrollable emotions and hissy fits, not suitable for full inclusion in the rational world of men.

A wise man tolerates this rampant emotionalism for the few benefits that might arise, but also keeps the female in question away from sharp objects during that recurring three week period.

(even you might see the humor and self evident truth in that, eh?)

It's not funny and it's not true.

That it's humorous and self evident to you speaks volumes about you.

 

[Dragonlipz]

It's not funny and it's not true.

That it's humorous and self evident to you speaks volumes about you.

S55 - it speaks volumes about a certain narcissist that his take and total experience of the feminine mystique is to be wary for three weeks a month lest your behavior spark that 'roller coaster of hissy fits and uncontrollable emotions'.....if you never got over having a thirteen year old girl-friend...it sort of makes some weird (albeit perverted) sense.............but we all knew that he's got a fetish for YOUNG adolescent girls....rather like his contemporary: Roman Polanski, a confessed and convicted child molester...........God may grant Polanski forgiveness but I never will.....(nor do I countenance those who think it's ok to fuck girls who are way too young....Like AmiCoot........)

 

[amicus]

It's not funny and it's not true.

That it's humorous and self evident to you speaks volumes about you.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Chuckles...I will most likely have to stand alone on this one as few men here, or anywhere, wish to endure the wrath of those who deny the existence of PMS and the other obvious and apparent vagaries of the female.

I don't mind and it is funny and it is true.

And...it does speak volumes, I am not a slave to the female, silenced and neutered by the promise of pussy.



der amicus....an avowed philogynist...like them apples?

 

[Dragonlipz]

[/[/I]QUOTE]


And...it does speak volumes, I am not a slave to the female, silenced and neutered by the promise of pussy.

If 'Der Amicus' (Does this self-description speak to some simple truths about this sick, sad, perverted individual? The same sick, sad, perverted individual who opines about the fact that 'FOX' does not seem interested in broadcasting anything besides their own sick, perverted agenda?) had an option/opportunity/chance at some pussy, perhaps his bluster could convince someone, anyone, that he had a virile, viable presence.
Unfortunately for this tired, sick, sad, human-wannabee.....virility and viability are not in the picture...he's a broken, reviled, impotent wretch who would be better off sucking some Alpha male's toes.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

Two more amicus rants for my collection... awesome!

I copy and paste them into a file. they are so very useful for characters-- that kind of old man is nothing I could come up with on my own.