Not applicable to Sweden back then. The young had brains enough to see it didn't work. It was the older generations that suffered from the boiling frog phenomenon. We had to shake them awake. When the Berlin wall fell the game changed. Sweden couldn't be out modernized by the East Europeans so we had to air out the marxism a.s.a.p. We even had to close down our national school administration and start over from scratch. It was so full of East German influence agents it couldn't even be reformed.BjornP wrote:Är du inte socialist som ung saknar du hjärta. Är du fortfarande socialist när du är äldre saknar du hjärna... or so they say.Hastur wrote: I was refering to my childhood which was in the 70's and 80's.
The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
-
- Posts: 5297
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:43 am
- Location: suiþiuþu
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna
Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
-
- Posts: 25278
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
Appeal to authority, and then some supposition That's useful.Martin Hash wrote:Bullshit, you're not a lawyer, and obviously not a student of history either; the disunited States were scared to death of centralized government, and wouldn't sign the Constitution unless they were promised guns to protect themselves from it.GrumpyCatFace wrote:The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.Smitty-48 wrote:Technically, the Second Amendment is inherently revolutionary, and the associated purpose of the Well Regulated Militia, would be to stave off a counterrevolution.
The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.
p.s. The REAL reason Lefties want to take your guns away.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
You could stand a little exposure to history. Especially relating to the compromises and deals made in Philadelphia in 87.
-
- Posts: 26035
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm
-
- Posts: 25278
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
That's why I come here. Enlighten me.Fife wrote:You could stand a little exposure to history. Especially relating to the compromises and deals made in Philadelphia in 87.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
-
- Posts: 25278
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
That's about what I figured.. no actual points to be made, just an assumption that I must be an idiot not to have the same opinion as you. Gotcha.Fife wrote:http://bfy.tw/CiSA
Waimminit - doesn't that make you a liberal?
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
Your illiteracy is not my problem. And yes, I'm liberal.
-
- Posts: 25278
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
My illiteracy... Coming from a guy who can't make an argument, yet has the time to pull a cute gif out of his ass to tell me to Google the Constitution, because obviously nobody could ever do such a thing and have the opinion that the 2nd Amendment means anything other than what he thinks it does.Fife wrote:Your illiteracy is not my problem. And yes, I'm liberal.
Solid debating, my friend.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: The current crop of left wing debaters is weak
Maybe you are literally illiterate. Like, can you read OK?
I suggested you read about the wheeling and dealing of the 1787 convention; especially since your "argument" is obviously ignorant of what agreements were made there. I'm trying to suggest something you might actually enjoy--it is fascinating history.
I suggested you read about the wheeling and dealing of the 1787 convention; especially since your "argument" is obviously ignorant of what agreements were made there. I'm trying to suggest something you might actually enjoy--it is fascinating history.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:The militia was intended as our initial standing army against foreign invasion - not to overthrow the government.
The intent of the 2nd has nothing to do with revolution, we've just decided to make it that way.