Free Republic

Good observation.

Thanks. I used to do that all the time. But I goofed something this morning.

Neither politicians nor the media have responded to this paper that should destroy the Democratic Party. So I penned another paper entitled “Scared?”. To access that paper, please go to search, enter Scared?, and press return. Click on Scared?

Please do NOT mix that thread with this one. Let’s keep them separated.

Both “Guilt of the 4 Isms” and “Scared?” are copyright October, 2006 by Forest Glen Durland.

Thanks, Forest

To access "Guilt of the 4 Isms", please go to search, enter Guilt, and press return. Click "Guilt of the 4 Isms".

I copied and pasted the url but it doesn't work any more, unless I somehow goofed a paste. 'Sorry 'bout that.

Forest

In my paper the 4 isms were included in one group because of their similar support of Democratism and destroying our Constitution. Those two characteristics alone are enough to call it treason and their supporters in America traitors.

Call it lazy if you wish, but it sure is practical. They must remain gathered around the same bull's eye.

I tried to keep the documentation well organized. Here's my process:

I took each statement from statement of the problem and numbered it, from top to bottom.

Then I copied each statement and placed it after its number in the documentation.

Following was the documentation necessary to uphold each statement.

I call that well organized. The length is what confuses many readers. However, the supporting material for such statements that I made is quite lengthy. There is no room for casual comments in such a paper.

My goal speaks for this necessity: I hope to completely destroy the Democratic Party. Instead of issuing derogatory remarks about them, I am acting.

But I need help. This paper must be brought to the attention of the public. Fox News is not answering.

Instead of links, I could have printed out all of 4 political platforms and several books. But people are already complaining about length. The statement of the problem is less than two pages. The documentation is necessary so readers may know the truth.

F

Loooong, yes. But well organized.

The Statement of the Problem is less than two pages. But the documentation that is necessary to back it up is long. Sorry about the very necessary details.

Regarding Post 27:

By your own posting, a Scocus judge respects and refers to the Fed Ps. That is the important point in my paper. The Scotus justices check out the Fed Ps, and can be expected to continue doing so.

I can not point to any decision wherein the Fed Ps are integrated with Cotus, but IN PRACTICE they are. And "in practice" is what counts, not what you can not find. Future justices will be referring to the Fed Ps, so expect the Fed Ps to retain power in the interpretation of Cotus.

It reference to Post 26:

"A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments."

Fed Ps 10: The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.

It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax..."

FDR gave us withholding tax.

"... Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it."

Kuehnelt-Leddihn move to America and became a US citizen.

"One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders."

See Fed Ps 10

Good explanation.

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.

Well said. Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. And your advice is well taken and in effect.

Well said. However, all kinds of people who love brevity will call me all kinds of liars without the lengthy documentation.

The statement of the problem is less than two pages. But without the backup, it is all hot air.

I ran a search and did not find "society's" that you referred to. I do not wish to post poorly edited work.

Please copy the sentence containing the error and reply so that I can correct any mistakes.

Good comment. Thanks. I limited myself to the major parties running that would be destructive in hopes to wake the people this week before it is too late.

For those wondering about "statism", I copied the definition from Wikipedia. There are varying definitions for the term. I assume that you used the state intervention meaning.

"Statism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters. 2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.

"There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism. Thus, at one extreme, some anarchists consider that the mere existence of a state is enough to make a country statist, while at the other extreme it is argued that only the most rigid totalitarian systems are truly statist. Usually, however, the term "statism" is used with a negative or derogatory connotation, in reference to something that the speaker considers to be an example of too much state intervention.

"The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term "statism" to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism."

Please study my documentation, complete with all the hot links. The Supreme Court decisions are there, and I give them precedence. That court does refer to the Fed Ps frequently.

Democracy is explained in the paper, at least what is needed here. The 4 isms must destroy our government to be applied. That is the danger signal I had hoped people would see.

Done. Please study the documentation. It is complete.

I did not state that they are identical. I did state that they have destructive goals in common.