One party rule is terrible for the people. Debate is an essential part of healthy social policy. A Patriot Party only makes sense if there is a party of non-patriots. After the Great Awakening, I doubt there will be enough non-patriots left to create their own meaningful voice.
The eternal debate over social policy has always had two basic sides: Change v. No change. Both are necessary voices in the debate. We will need two new parties (at least) that represent these ideals. We need patriots that will listen to each other in earnest, and speak with logic and reason without the Luciferian self-serving manipulations that have been there for all of our countries history.
My statement was in fact a brief satirical comment on how I provided an argument to support my position and you did not. Not trolling so much as an implicit suggestion that if you wish to support your position you should use logic and reason instead of merely attempting to shut down the conversation.
What was most ironic is that my initial argument was about how we need to have two sides listening to each other going forward for the best end result in social policy, and you proved me correct by doing the opposite and achieving a proof of my point instead of yours.
One party rule is terrible for the people. Debate is an essential part of healthy social policy. A Patriot Party only makes sense if there is a party of non-patriots. After the Great Awakening, I doubt there will be enough non-patriots left to create their own meaningful voice.
The eternal debate over social policy has always had two basic sides: Change v. No change. Both are necessary voices in the debate. We will need two new parties (at least) that represent these ideals. We need patriots that will listen to each other in earnest, and speak with logic and reason without the Luciferian self-serving manipulations that have been there for all of our countries history.
nope
Thank you for providing a reasoned response to advance the discussion.
now your trolling.
My statement was in fact a brief satirical comment on how I provided an argument to support my position and you did not. Not trolling so much as an implicit suggestion that if you wish to support your position you should use logic and reason instead of merely attempting to shut down the conversation.
What was most ironic is that my initial argument was about how we need to have two sides listening to each other going forward for the best end result in social policy, and you proved me correct by doing the opposite and achieving a proof of my point instead of yours.