The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: RZZZA on November 03, 2010, 02:25:46 PM
-
This post goes out to conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers...whatever you self identify as.
First of all, Hello. I come from the Huffington Post but unfortunately, there is no civil or intelligent discourse to be found there between the two sides, only petty sniping and name-calling. I really want to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle about something that has been bothering me lately, and that is this co-opting of the term "socialist" as a dirty word in reference to our president and to Democrats in general. I am bothered in large part by the Tea Partiers seemingly misusing history to suit their agenda. They dress up like the founding fathers, they call themselves the Tea Party, but it seems to me most of them do not really understand our early American history, for if they did, they would realize that these arguments about bigger government/smaller government have been going on since the earliest foundation of our country.
What is now called "Conservatives vs Progressives" used to be called "Federalists vs Anti-Federalists", but the arguments were largely the same. The Tea Partiers seem unaware of this however, as they dress up in founding father costumes, they seem to believe every single founding father was for less government. This simply is not true.
I'm a big fan of history and it bothers me to see Americans perverting it to suit their own agendas. Another issue that bothers me is this sudden popularity of calling our president and his party "socialists" or "marxists" or even "communists". I don't understand this sudden need to make the word "socialist" a dirty word. This country has been practicing socialism since Alexander Hamilton. We've never really had a purely free-market capitalist system. It has always been a mixed economy, with both capitalistic and socialistic elements. Socialist programs have also been enacted with much success. Are these programs perfect? no, of course not, but to pretend like it's some new and evil thing to champion social programs is strange and just seems flat out wrong to me. George Washington, though not a member of any political party, identified with the Federalist party and identified with big-government policies.
It's completely fine to me to disagree with a big-government approach to this issue or that issue, I'm not one of these liberal democrats who thinks every conservative is evil and wrong about everything, but when I see right-wingers calling left-wingers socialists, marxists or communists, I have a tough time taking them very seriously.
Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?
-
A couple of points...
You will find no group of folks that know and understand history then folks here so playing the "I am more educated then you" meme won`t get you far.
Second is that political terminoligy has shifted over the years and socialism as we consider it is the concept of an all powerfull central government that controls all measures of the economy.
It is probably more accurately regarded as Marxisim half way to the way of Communisim.
That is where history has shown leftisim always leads to be used as a system...enforced at the point of a sword.
Last as a staff member here I can see the email you registered and one that suggests former President Bush engages in a homosexual act doesn`t indicate a person looking for peaceful discource.
You can stay as long as you obey the rules but you are fair game so hope you packed a lunch.
You will run away crying in no time when you realize how far in over your head you are.
-
Calling the left socialist is accurate because the left wants to tax the producers and redistribute the wealth, mostly to the 'poor,' who are filthy rich compared to the real poverty that is found in third world countries. Taxing the producers is a strong dis-incentive to hiring more people, or even trying to be successful. Why make a lot of money, if most of it is going to be stolen for the 'common good?'
Venezeula is on food rations because Hugo Chavez nationalized the economy and drove the producers out.
In addition to creating mutual poverty for all, wealth redistribution requires a powerful government by necessity, with a strong enforcement arm. The result is a ready made dictatorship that always ends up becoming a dictatorship.
-
Socialist is short-hand for government coopting private economic properties.
Short hand though it may be I have no qualms with using it.
If left to his own devises Obama would take away ever-increasing swathes of our economic and political freedoms.
If that taints him with the reek of such people as the Central and South America tin pots that he can shake hands with while reserving terms like "enemies" for (fellow) Americans then that is how he smells.
Don't like it?
Then tell YOUR president to stop stealing our property and our rights.
-
BTW - if you're so wound-up about this term please explain his glowing accounts of such people as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, Van Jones, etc etc etc
These are not casual acquaintances, these are people who chosen to work with or have work for him.
If Obama/you are so nervous about the reek of socialism stop working with commie shit bags.
-
just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.
You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.
Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?
Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?
-
I'm a big fan of history and it bothers me to see Americans perverting it to suit their own agendas.
So then you must be pretty mad with your fellow Liberals these days then huh?
Another issue that bothers me is this sudden popularity of calling our president and his party "socialists" or "marxists" or even "communists".
Perhaps the bank takeovers...trying to limit what CEO's can make...placing restrictive regulations on Wall Street and the fact that under this President and his merry band of Socialists...that's right I said Socialists...they muscled their way into majority owner of two car companies.
Then theres universal (socialized) healthcare that punishes people and employers for not bowing to the will of the Federal Government and forcing them to carry insurance or get fined.
I don't understand this sudden need to make the word "socialist" a dirty word.
Then you aren't quite the student of history that you claim to be.
This country has been practicing socialism since Alexander Hamilton
Proof?
We've never really had a purely free-market capitalist system. It has always been a mixed economy, with both capitalistic and socialistic elements
I suppose you plan to back this up and not just expect us to swallow that BS whole. This isn't HuffPo where shit gets shoveled and we just say thank you and ask for more.
Socialist programs have also been enacted with much success.
Name one.
Are these programs perfect? no, of course not, but to pretend like it's some new and evil thing to champion social programs is strange and just seems flat out wrong to me.
Why? It's not new to anyone that has followed politics. But people who champion trying to turn us into the mirror image of what Russia used to be and what China is today will always be evil and will ALWAYS be wrong.
George Washington, though not a member of any political party, identified with the Federalist party and identified with big-government policies.
*cough* bullshit *cough*
One thing to learn here n00b. You can't just waltz in here and spout Liberal platitudes and talking points and get away with it. This is an educated bunch and you beeter have solid proof to back up this line of BS you've started.
-
Oh, this is going to be fun...
-
You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.
He and his party want to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250,000 dollars a year.
Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?
The housing bubble burst was the result of the Community Reinvestment Act, enacted by the Clinton administration, forcing lenders to loan to people who could not pay back the loans.
Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?
Please see my earlier post.
-
Oh, this is going to be fun...
(http://www.gamemutt.com/ContentFiles/Images/Pictures/b93849c6-a90f-4693-8d8b-12d49c469a20.jpg)
-
You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society.
That is class warfare rhetoric pure and simple. It's no different than what Lenin did in the early 20th Century to start a Revolution and turn a country towards 70+ years of disaster.
Those "wealthiest members of our society' pay 95% of the taxes in the country already. Yet that's not enough for you Libs...there always has to be more taken to pay for your failed and bloated social welfare programs...gotta buy more votes and scare more people into voting for your crap with MY money.
We have almost half of the country that doesn't pay taxes as it is. We fought against England over confiscatory tax rates. For someone who studies history...your research doesn't go very far back. If it did you'd understand why people are angry over this blatant power grab and unprescedented expansion of the reach and scope of the Federal Government over the last two years.
If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.
More Liberal pabulum.
Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done.
Give it back to the states where it was originally.
How do you balance those two opposing thoughts?
How are they opposing thoughts? It's been proven throughout history...there's that word again...that when the taxes are cut...the revenue to the Federal Government goes up.
If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?
More Liberal boilerplate. Are you reading from a teleprompter?
Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?
Obama has been only second to FDR in trying to lurch this country hard to the left and give us Socialism. His policies...like Obamas actually delayed recovery from prolonged economic downturn. The ONLY thing that saved this country from a continued depression under FDR was WW II.
Why should we be told that people who are successful should be punished for their hard work and effort by having their money confiscated by the Government and given to someone who didn't do anything to earn it?
-
Bitchslapped for not having the sack to carry your communist banner before you. Mao would've personally put one in your brain stem if he saw that kind attitude in Jiangxi Soviet.
-
just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.
Oh I think it has EVERYTHING to do with how the discourse of this thread will go.
This isn't our first rodeo with a Liberal that decides to come here and bombard us with lengthy posts of pure 100% talking points.
Eventually your script ends and you've got nothing left...especially when we take your argument apart point by point...which will happen BTW.
That's when the meltdown will begin and that moronic email addy you signed up with will prove once again that it was all we needed to know about where you were coming from in the first place.
-
oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.
I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.
I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.
-
oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.
I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.
I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.
The constitution was written to limit the government's power, and by extension, its size.
-
Socialism is a dirty word, at least to us. It has previously appeared in such contexts as "the National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
I can understand to point of view of someone who would pint out that the use of the word "Republic" is not necessarily tarnished by being a part of the name of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; however, it should be noticeable that North Korea makes no pretense of actually being either "Democratic" or a "Republic" in any meaningful way.
Socialism, as I understand it, is neither more nor less than a Command State, with a Command Economy, where the State has either supreme regulatory control (Fascism), operational control (a form of "democratic" Socialism) or outright ownership (Soviet Communism) of industry, agriculture, the works.
In this country we have had severe regulatory controls for decades. Only in the last couple of years have we seen the State take operational control and de facto ownership of a company (GM) (ownership meaning that the Head of State had the authority to order the firing of the CEO!).
Operational Control of banks and lending institutions is also a new fact of life. Industry, under the Cap and Trade rules, is in for the same fate. Don't get me started on State meddling with agriculture, please...
We conservatives and Tea Party people want a lot of different things, and there are things some of us want that others of us don't. For me the bottom line is The Constitution (COTUS), as amended. Go back to that, and everything else I'm after will fall into place.
There are four adjustments I would like to make to COTUS: outright repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax, and popular election of Senators), adjustment to the 14th (so that only children of citizens or legal aliens are themselves birthright citizens) and adjustment to the 2nd (making all firearms regulation impermissible).
-
just ignore the email I used to register with, it's inconsequential to the discourse in this thread.
You guys say things like "redistribute the wealth" and "co-opting private economic properties" but in reality, all obama is proposing to do is rework the tax on the wealthiest members of our society. If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.
Just speaking in general terms, it seems like right wingers are against taxes but yet somehow want the budget to be balanced and social works projects like public education and paved roads to be done. How do you balance those two opposing thoughts? If it's generally accepted fact that the middle class has been shrinking for decades, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there really is no disagreement about the need to address that problem, only the means by which we should address it. Obama thinks trickle down economics hasn't worked out for the middle and lower economic class, he wants to raise taxes on the rich while keeping taxes for the poor and middle class the same. If we've tried trickle down economics for the past 30+ years and its resulted in what we saw happen to the economy in 2008, then why should we continue with what hasn't worked?
Raising taxes on the rich isn't unprecedented, FDR raised it the highest it's ever been in our countries history and those were hardly the end of days. Under Clinton, they were higher than they are now and you must agree that the economy was decent. Why should raising taxes on the rich be demagogue'd as some form of socialism, when that is clearly a scare-mongering tactic that's both disingenuous and irreconcilable with responsible & civil debate?
You can say ignore your email but it is at polar opposites to what you claim to be here fore...civil discourse.
That in my book makes you a liar.
Now as to your talking points,there is no one here that is an anarchist and says that there should be no government.
We all understand the Constitutional mandate for a limited federal government and the need for a state one.
Taxes or other means is of course needed to fund that mandate but no where is there a Constitutional "social contract",the founders never once envisioned that.
We have a republic so it is fair for items to be put on the table regarding governmental activities and how they are funded,if the public wants some form of welfare safety net and is willing to vote the means of funding it at their own sacrifice then fine.
When a party declares it has the right to confiscate money to provide a welfare state with no strings attached then it is no longer government by Constitutional constraints.
That is what we oppose in all forms.
Is that clear enough for you?
-
He has left already,that didn`t take long. ::)
-
I'll be back, I just don't have time right now to devote to this. I have to eat, then I have to do my work, then I have to leave the house. I didn't anticipate this forum to be so active.
Look, guys, I'm just going to admit right now that I'm not that smart. I'm a fan of history, true, but I'm not a history professor. I'm a young student with questions, that's why I wanted to seek out a conservative forum, to ask questions.
-
He has left already,that didn`t take long. ::)
And you were just getting warmed up.......
doc
-
I'll admit that the new
chew toy poster is right in one instance. We HAVE been practicing some form of "Socialism" for a long while. If I recall, it started under Teddy Roosevelt, a Progressive in his day, escalated under Wilson and further escalated under FDR. Harry Truman didn't do much to escalate Socialism, but LBJ did, especially when he started with affirmative action and welfare programs. Obama has attempted to bring it to an entire NEW level. What else do you call it when one takes from one person (by coercion) and gives it to another?? I'm sorry, but the Dems or Liberals are NOT "Robin Hood". Furthermore, Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT of the day, who WERE the "Rich", and gave it back to the peasants who worked hard for what little they DID have. Pretty much, he stole BACK from the Government what they forcefully stole from the poor.
-
oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.
Well yeah it does take something akin to guts to say that a woman deserved to get punched. (Snooki ring a bell genius?)
I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government.
Name one. You keep spouting off this stuff without anything to back it up.
Quick...now run back to HuffPo and ask for help on this one.
I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.
Nah didn't see this coming.
-
n00b you claim that it's not fair that the "rich" aren't paying "their fair share".
Ok...explain this then:
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.Par.0008.ImageFile.gif)
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
Source: IRS www.irs.gov
-
Y'all are doing a good job on the socialist.
I just wanted to add that the first Tea Party was in Charleston, S.C. and they didn't throw the tea in the sea. They put it in a warehouse and then sold it to buy weapons for the Revolution. ...rich, evil, tightwad conservatives that they were.
-
Well yeah it does take something akin to guts to say that a woman deserved to get punched. (Snooki ring a bell genius?)
huh?
-
I'll be back, I just don't have time right now to devote to this. I have to eat, then I have to do my work, then I have to leave the house. I didn't anticipate this forum to be so active.
Yup you thought you could just come in here the day after a historic election and drop your talking points and that no one would challenge them At least not right away.
Look, guys, I'm just going to admit right now that I'm not that smart. I'm a fan of history, true, but I'm not a history professor. I'm a young student with questions, that's why I wanted to seek out a conservative forum, to ask questions.
Yet you haven't really asked any questions per se. You've scolded and chided us for factually accurate descriptions of what the Democrat party in this country is trying to do to us...if you were truly a fan of history...and not just what the public school system has indoctrinated you with...then your "questions" would be answered.
But hey I'll take you at your word (for now) that despite what I've seen to the contrary you're here to learn. Just don't be surprised if what you learn goes against everything you've been told to think over at HuffPo.
It's usually a pretty good shock to the system the first time out of the echo chamber.
-
(http://www.gamemutt.com/ContentFiles/Images/Pictures/b93849c6-a90f-4693-8d8b-12d49c469a20.jpg)
*insert missing popcorn graphic smiley*
-
I want to be challenged, that's why I came here. It's probably best not to think of me as just some "huffpo poster", as I never really fit in there and I posted there with quite a bit of disdain for the general environment and what I considered to be a lack of seriousness and respect for people who did not agree with their political viewpoints. Although some conservatives post there, it's only to snipe and name-call the liberals, and to be fair, the liberals over there only snipe and name-call the conservatives. So it's not a place for intelligent discourse. I have been a part of a mixed community forum before, where liberals and conservatives would debate civilly, so this isn't my first foray out of the echo chamber. That's why, as you can see, I'm very patient and calm with you all. I think I have asked legit questions in my original post, to sum up the questions were "Why has it become a trend for right wingers to name-call the left wingers as socialists/communists/marxists" and "why do the tea partiers claim the imagery of the founding fathers for their own agenda without recognizing that the founding fathers had disagreements similar to the ones liberals and conservatives have today?"
Many of you have answered the first question, you name-call the liberals because you believe the labels are true and that they fit, ok, fair enough. It still seems like the sort of thing that is counterproductive to civil discourse, but if you believe you are right and liberals are dumb and stupid, then obviously civil discourse may not be your aim at all. You have not answered the second question and some of you disagree with the premise of the question to begin with. I, personally, have seen many times on T.V. the coverage of Tea Party rallies and I see people dress up as founding fathers, in colonial attire, waving the Gadsden flag. It's my opinion that this co-opting of early American imagery is disingenuous to the historic reality. If the Tea Party rallies are all about small government as I assume they are, then it would be honest to admit that the founding fathers had plenty of their own disagreements about the nature of our government and what role it should play - they were not all on the same level when it came to politics, far from it.
Now, I have about 20 minutes left before I must get ready to leave and I'm afraid I can't address all of your posts to a satisfactory level in that amount of time. Not wanting you to feel like I'm ignoring some of you, and please know I appreciate your input, I think it's best for me to put off any substantive point-by-point replies till late tonight or early tomorrow.
-
If you think "socialist" is rough try being dismissed as a "racist" every time you try to talk about marginal tax rates.
None of us ever took offence being called a capitalist.
If it's not socialism then let people and states self-exempt including relieving them of any tax burdens associated with whatever absurd socialist scheme you have in mind.
The fact is, you can't. You cannot afford to allow people out of social security, public education, welfare, etc etc etc because your entire system relies on taking money away from those who need those services the least and shunting them to those whose votes are being bought.
And spare us the "what about police, roads, fire department?" canards. Providing roads for public use is a far cry from lifting money from one person's pocket to stick into another person's pocket.
And the hypocrisy strikes deeper. As much as liberals/socialists/commies whine about the corrupting influence of corporate money the more businesses you regulate the more those business owners will bribe/lobby their way into politics to be spared the worst regulations or punish competitors.
You're never going to elect 535 Jesus clones to sinlessly manage the government. There are some decent pols but power and money always attract the corrupt.
If you fear TEAhadist President Palin teaching creationism and anti-masturbation messages in a classroom then maybe you might want to disband the federal Dept of Education before we reset our Diebold machines.
You can keep abortion though. I hear they found a gene for homosexuality we can scan for with amnio centesis.
-
Never have read the Federalist Papers or the Anti Federalist Papers, have you? IMO, that should be requisite before graduating High School. There are "Liberals" in the TRUE sense of the word. Our founding Fathers were true "Liberals". Then there are the Progressives of today's world, who have hijacked the term, "Liberal". The Progressives ARE Socialists to the core. If not Socialists, Marxists. I would even go as far as comparing some of them to the Fascist regimes.
-
I, personally, have seen many times on T.V. the coverage of Tea Party rallies and I see people dress up as founding fathers, in colonial attire, waving the Gadsden flag. It's my opinion that this co-opting of early American imagery is disingenuous to the historic reality. If the Tea Party rallies are all about small government as I assume they are, then it would be honest to admit that the founding fathers had plenty of their own disagreements about the nature of our government and what role it should play - they were not all on the same level when it came to politics, far from it.
They agreed enough to form the Bill of Rights, which, again, limits the governments power.
-
I, personally, have seen many times on T.V. the coverage of Tea Party rallies and I see people dress up as founding fathers, in colonial attire, waving the Gadsden flag. It's my opinion that this co-opting of early American imagery is disingenuous to the historic reality. If the Tea Party rallies are all about small government as I assume they are, then it would be honest to admit that the founding fathers had plenty of their own disagreements about the nature of our government and what role it should play - they were not all on the same level when it came to politics, far from it.
They also fought to be left the **** alone. They fought because a tax rate went from 1.5% to 2% without their consent.
So what if people dress in 18th century garb. They are tapping into an ideal.
When the little ****tards dribbling out of colleges like so much anal leakage dress as the title character from the movie V are they endorsing religious terrorism--from a Catholic no less--or are they appealing to some (asinine) romantic ideal they have?
Thomas Paine would like Obama well enough on social issues but he would also like the idea that government only serves at the consent of the people, people do not serve the government.
-
I want to be challenged, that's why I came here. It's probably best not to think of me as just some "huffpo poster", as I never really fit in there and I posted there with quite a bit of disdain for the general environment and what I considered to be a lack of seriousness and respect for people who did not agree with their political viewpoints. Although some conservatives post there, it's only to snipe and name-call the liberals, and to be fair, the liberals over there only snipe and name-call the conservatives. So it's not a place for intelligent discourse. I have been a part of a mixed community forum before, where liberals and conservatives would debate civilly, so this isn't my first foray out of the echo chamber. That's why, as you can see, I'm very patient and calm with you all. I think I have asked legit questions in my original post, to sum up the questions were "Why has it become a trend for right wingers to name-call the left wingers as socialists/communists/marxists" and "why do the tea partiers claim the imagery of the founding fathers for their own agenda without recognizing that the founding fathers had disagreements similar to the ones liberals and conservatives have today?"
Many of you have answered the first question, you name-call the liberals because you believe the labels are true and that they fit, ok, fair enough. It still seems like the sort of thing that is counterproductive to civil discourse, but if you believe you are right and liberals are dumb and stupid, then obviously civil discourse may not be your aim at all. You have not answered the second question and some of you disagree with the premise of the question to begin with. I, personally, have seen many times on T.V. the coverage of Tea Party rallies and I see people dress up as founding fathers, in colonial attire, waving the Gadsden flag. It's my opinion that this co-opting of early American imagery is disingenuous to the historic reality. If the Tea Party rallies are all about small government as I assume they are, then it would be honest to admit that the founding fathers had plenty of their own disagreements about the nature of our government and what role it should play - they were not all on the same level when it came to politics, far from it.
Now, I have about 20 minutes left before I must get ready to leave and I'm afraid I can't address all of your posts to a satisfactory level in that amount of time. Not wanting you to feel like I'm ignoring some of you, and please know I appreciate your input, I think it's best for me to put off any substantive point-by-point replies till late tonight or early tomorrow.
It is clear that many of the founders had differing views of governance and out of that grew the federalist and anti federalist parties.
Many of those basic divisions still exist however it is also clear beyond argument that none of the founders envisioned a government so enormous and tyrannical as the one that exists today.
Do you believe that they (the founders) believed in a government that considers itself to be the adjudicating force regarding "fairness"?
Do you believe that the founders thought that government should allow for a perpetual and generational welfare state?
Do you believe that the founders ever imagined that there would be a government that demands the public through taxation be a servant of the state?
You really need to take a look at our history outside of a desire to make it fit your wishes.
-
"When the little ****tards dribbling out of colleges like so much anal leakage dress as the title character from the movie V are they endorsing religious terrorism--from a Catholic no less--or are they appealing to some (asinine) romantic ideal they have?"
I think those people are from 4chan...They're down with general mischievousness and trolling the hell out of what they call "moralfags", although 4chan posters do not all agree with eachother, there is also a lot of good that 4chan does, such as exacting revenge on that terrible woman in detroit who mocked the fatal disease of a young girl living next door to her as well as the death of her mother from said disease. 4chan = vigilantes, hackers and tricksters
-
It is clear that many of the founders had differing views of governance and out of that grew the federalist and anti federalist parties.
Many of those basic divisions still exist however it is also clear beyond argument that none of the founders envisioned a government so enormous and tyrannical as the one that exists today.
Do you believe that they (the founders) believed in a government that considers itself to be the adjudicating force regarding "fairness"?
Do you believe that the founders thought that government should allow for a perpetual and generational welfare state?
Do you believe that the founders ever imagined that there would be a government that demands the public through taxation be a servant of the state?
You really need to take a look at our history outside of a desire to make it fit your wishes.
Methinks he had a cocktail party in the Hamptons to trot off to. Nonetheless, I doubt he'll actually debate a point much less a historical one. Implying we are mis-educated is far less riskier an enterprise.
-
I'll try my best to debate your points, I'm just pressed for time. It's not a cocktail party I have to go to, I have certain real life obligations that take precedence over an internet forum. I'm sure you all, being conservatives, understand that a person must work for a living instead of sitting at home messing around on the internet all day. Although it would be sweet if I were paid to do that.
I have read the federalist papers and I read *most* of the anti-federalist papers, I agree they should be mandatory teaching in public schools. I was never taught this, I had to find them and read them myself. I think it was Mark Twain who said "Don't let schooling interfere with your education."
-
When RZZZA is my age, he will be sick of socialism....Social Security alone will have bankrupted this country. He'll be paying in half or more of what he makes to keep up the retirees....and industry will be...I don't know if it'll even exist...industry will be matching those funds if they exist further damaging the economy.
Social Security is a pyramid sales scheme, ponzi scam, a change letter scam and RZZZA will be one of the big losers when it falls. If that isn't enough, the rest of what he earns, if he even works, will be taken for the other socialist programs.
-
Methinks he had a cocktail party in the Hamptons to trot off to. Nonetheless, I doubt he'll actually debate a point much less a historical one. Implying we are mis-educated is far less riskier an enterprise.
Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something.
-
Read my sig line.
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
*insert the b-fn-hoo smiley*
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
Call it a rite of passage.
You won't get banned for being liberal (not that DU will say the same for conservatives) but you will be a chew toy.
Just ask soliel.
We, even I, were merciless when she arrive and ID'ed as a liberal. In time she weathered the tides and we not only accepted her but we defended her against other long term board members who took umbrage with her mere presence.
The fact is we're tired of being called racist, knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping xenophobic, misogynists...and then have every member of our coalition that is female, non-white, non-Christians, immigrant born deride as a not-authenitic-enough-race/gender-traitor.
You're gonna take the sabot rounds when you first crest the hill but if you stand your ground without arrogance or puss-tardity and eventually we'll stop shooting.
HINT: conservatives never respect that which is given and hold only contempt for that which is demanded...but they deeply admire that which is earned.
Savvy?
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
FYI....
"More likely he had to go pick up trash or something." = guys in the orange coveralls literally "picking up the trash" - that would be pop cans, bags from MickeyD's, various and sundry items of trash - thown out the window of a car or truck along the roadway. This is not a job with a salary, nor is it a volunteer position - it is usually determined by a person in a black robe, sitting at the front of a courtroom at a desk on a dais who is addressed as either "Your Honor" or "Judge --- "
"someone (edited to add: who) does pick up trash for a living?" = the employed individual who either drives or rides along on a garbage collection truck picking up bagged/binned garbage in a residential or commercial setting.....in most areas a rather well-paying job, usually done by an extremely fit/muscled individual. This person not only collects a regular paycheck, but most likely has benefits such as health insurance and paid vacations.
Understand the difference?
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
First, welcome to CC.
Second- bitchslap for a shitty name, unless you are latino, then bitchslap again for being a ****ing racist.
Third, As mention by others, being a whiny little POS cocksucking leftist won't get you banned. The rules are fairly simple here, and I am sure Thor (Whiny poopy head that he is) or Odin's Hand (dominate hand...if you catch my drift) will let you know if you do break a rule now and again.
You are gonna catch shit here. Everyone does. It's something that (in my humble opin) that we could trace to the military of other such groups that routinely treat each other like shit until you prove yourself, and then treat you worse. You either 'man' up and learn how to dish it back or you go off crying for your momma. You want to chew someone out with no holes barred, once you get to 50 posts, call them out in the fight club.
What we see mostlybut leftists showing up here is a respouting of talking points, hurt feelings because we don't treat them nice (they don't notice we don't treat each other nice) and they either flame out or fade away.
A few stay on and are treated with the total disrespect we treat everyone with, making their idiotic points a view a drag on everyone.
If you can put up with it, welcome to honest communication between, as the president says, enemies.
****ing tosser.
-
"Doubt it, SB. More likely he had to go pick up trash or something."
what's the deal, why must you flame me? I'm being nice to you guys yet some of you are being unnecessarily mean and petty. This is the reason I left Huffpo yet the environment here is not seeming so different. So what if someone does pick up trash for a living? Having a job is noble, no matter what it is, I don't make fun of garbage men or fast food workers.
Guy,no one has flamed you...your choice of throwaway email name has been brought up as it relates to your supposed desire for civil discourse.
That you just shrugged off.
Several of us here have asked you pointed questions regarding your premises and have called on you to answer and defend.
You have not at this point so whining about treatment is a diversion.
Get back to the point you tried to make in the op and defend it against the points made in opposition.
-
....blabbling like you were talking to a toddler...
Understand the difference?
OMG! Did you wipe his ass with a wetwipe while you were at it?
I don't normally strike girls, so you get a B-spank.
-
OMG! Did you wipe his ass with a wetwipe while you were at it?
I don't normally strike girls, so you get a B-spank.
:P
somebody had to be a little bit pleasant.... ;D
-
OMG! Did you wipe his ass with a wetwipe while you were at it?
I don't normally strike girls, so you get a B-spank.
H5
Not for anything meritorious but because you H5/BS counter was out of synch.
-
Dutch, you lame assed bastard, you're being way too nice. ****in Doggie.....
-
Dutch, you lame assed bastard, you're being way too nice. ****in Doggie.....
Last time, I just kicked reagancumstain in the nuts and he's still not over it. I thought at the very least I'd point this turd sucker in the right direction before I kick him in the nuts.
assuming he has any.
or is a he.
Hey, if you are a good looking girl, it's in the by-laws you have to post a picture.
(happy now/)
-
...Social Security alone will have bankrupted this country...[it] is a pyramid sales scheme, ponzi scam, a change letter scam and RZZZA will be one of the big losers when it falls. If that isn't enough, the rest of what he earns, if he even works, will be taken for the other socialist programs.
As I wrote elsewhere: One day, Social Security will cease to exist. This is inevitable. The unknown: whether it will be deconstructed over time, letting those who have (foolishly or selfishly) relied upon it to be eased into a better arrangement, or instead crash in a cataclysm of (hopefully metaphorical) blood and fire.
-
FYI....
"More likely he had to go pick up trash or something." = guys in the orange coveralls literally "picking up the trash" - that would be pop cans, bags from MickeyD's, various and sundry items of trash - thown out the window of a car or truck along the roadway. This is not a job with a salary, nor is it a volunteer position - it is usually determined by a person in a black robe, sitting at the front of a courtroom at a desk on a dais who is addressed as either "Your Honor" or "Judge --- "
That is what I was talking about. BS to the OP for whining like a bitch.
-
Hey Lib, are you done with your real life yet so we can get some replies?? You will only get flamed more if you post drivel, repeat what you've already said, or whine more about us being "not nice." It is our board and you came here of your own free will, so take it or leave it.
-
I'm a big fan of history and it bothers me to see Americans perverting it to suit their own agendas. Another issue that bothers me is this sudden popularity of calling our president and his party "socialists" or "marxists" or even "communists". I don't understand this sudden need to make the word "socialist" a dirty word. It's completely fine to me to disagree with a big-government approach to this issue or that issue, I'm not one of these liberal democrats who thinks every conservative is evil and wrong about everything, but when I see right-wingers calling left-wingers socialists, marxists or communists, I have a tough time taking them very seriously.
So,...you think conservatives are calling the imposter, a socialist/marxist/communist because it's "sudden popularity"?! HA HA! ::) ::) Is "redistribution of wealth" not a form of socialism?! Why did the imposter say he wants to "redistribute the wealth"?! He is a socialist, whether you face that fact or not, that's your choice. By the way, socialist is a "dirty" word. Take from the have to give to the have-nots to level the playing field. Bring America down to the level of Europe, so they can put in place a New World Order. How does a government force a person to buy an item, i.e. healthcare? Then punish you if you do not? I'll just leave it with this. The imposter occupying the White Mosque has done NOTHING for America. I wish India would keep him when he goes over there.
-
I'm back. Before I begin addressing some of your points I'd like to state that I'm not against the Republican party on principle. I admired what the party once was and my beef is really with my perception of what it has become, meaning I perceive it has deteriorated. I admire people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater for being intellectuals and standard bearers for the conservative cause, even if those two were not always right on every single issue; for example civil rights. Buckley later regretted not having supported the civil rights act, I'm not sure if Goldwater did or not. Civil rights is an example of an issue that, I feel, could only have been dealt with by the federal government. Another such issue is a coherent, comprehensive energy policy. I digress...These two are an example of a thoughtful, principled, intellectual Republican that I believe we've seen less and less of as time has gone by. When Reagan opened the door to the Christian Coalition to help himself get elected, he also opened the door to a lot of religious radicalism, extremism and ignorance that helped hijack the Republican party from its proud roots. This new crop of Tea Partiers is doing the same, with the rise of what I and many others like to refer to as the "know-nothings", the likes of Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino.
It sounds to me like you guys are Classical Liberals and fiscal Conservatives. Which is fine to me, my beef is with social conservatives, religious fundamentalists and the "know-nothings" who make a virtue out of ignorance.
Regarding my e-mail, since that has become an issue amongst some of you. What exactly is the problem? All of you seem proud of labeling yourself conservatives yet you seem offended that my e-mail is derogatory towards George W. Bush, a big-government Republican responsible for championing big-government policies such as the Patriot Act and TARP. Since I assume you are loyal to conservatism and not simply to party affiliation, I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and admit that George W. Bush was no real friend to small-government conservatism. Along this same train of thought, the current Majority leader in the House as well as the majority whip were both proponents of TARP, they argued passionately for its passage during the economic meltdown of 2008. So, again I am left to wonder, do you reflexively defend every politician with an R next to his name no matter their policies or will you criticize big-government Republicans as you do big-government Democrats? OK, onward to addressing some of your replies. Let's go in chronological order:
Calling the left socialist is accurate because the left wants to tax the producers and redistribute the wealth, mostly to the 'poor,' who are filthy rich compared to the real poverty that is found in third world countries. Taxing the producers is a strong dis-incentive to hiring more people, or even trying to be successful. Why make a lot of money, if most of it is going to be stolen for the 'common good?'
I think the goal right now is to stabilize the middle class, not so much to elevate the poor. I disagree that "most" of their money is being stolen. I've personally seen many times, the rich say "tax me more. I can afford it." Granted these are leftists, and not captains of industry. If we simply return to the tax rates for the rich that were in place under Clinton, it wouldn't break the back of the employers. when the bush tax rates were put in place they were originally set to expire in ten years, they were never meant to be permanent. If we keep giving tax cuts without ever raising taxes, it makes no sense to me, there has to be some sort of point where even conservatives say "we're bankrupt. We either need to seriously find some massive spending programs to cut, or raise taxes."
Venezeula is on food rations because Hugo Chavez nationalized the economy and drove the producers out.
ok? Nobody is proposing that we nationalize any industry, that I'm aware of.
In addition to creating mutual poverty for all, wealth redistribution requires a powerful government by necessity, with a strong enforcement arm. The result is a ready made dictatorship that always ends up becoming a dictatorship.
A powerful federal government, we have. I don't think we're in any danger of becoming a dictatorship. The way I see it, we're in greater danger of becoming a plutocracy. A great argument can be made that we already are.
If left to his own devises Obama would take away ever-increasing swathes of our economic and political freedoms.
If that taints him with the reek of such people as the Central and South America tin pots that he can shake hands with while reserving terms like "enemies" for (fellow) Americans then that is how he smells.
Don't like it?
Then tell YOUR president to stop stealing our property and our rights.
It's commonly said that once an expansion of federal government is made, it's very hard to reign it back in. I criticize Obama for not amending the patriot act, for example, that was passed under the Bush presidency as I see certain portions of it as a big over-reach. But if you criticize Obama for something like that you also have to criticize Bush. What other freedoms, economic or political, has Obama taken from you?
BTW - if you're so wound-up about this term please explain his glowing accounts of such people as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, Van Jones, etc etc etc
These are not casual acquaintances, these are people who chosen to work with or have work for him.
If Obama/you are so nervous about the reek of socialism stop working with commie shit bags.
Hmm, well I'm not familiar with some of these names. Some I recognize, but I was not aware that Obama worked closely with them. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the relationship with rev. Wright and Bill Ayers as a working relationship, for example. From what I've seen of Obama, he's big on that whole "let's find common ground and work together" thing. The fact that he once stood next to Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky at some gathering is not sufficient enough evidence for me to damn him, it sounds more like guilt-by-association. If he isn't letting Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky influence legislation then what exactly is the big deal? You all seem to think Obama is a big radical scary lefty pinko commie bastard, but I don't see him that way, I view him closer to being a moderate actually. He's remarkably moderate and rather milquetoast.
Perhaps the bank takeovers...trying to limit what CEO's can make...placing restrictive regulations on Wall Street and the fact that under this President and his merry band of Socialists...that's right I said Socialists...they muscled their way into majority owner of two car companies.
Then theres universal (socialized) healthcare that punishes people and employers for not bowing to the will of the Federal Government and forcing them to carry insurance or get fined.
You said a lot of stuff here so I'll try to dissect it point by point. The measures taken to stabilize the economy were necessary, and they were started under George W. Bush with approval and support from the Republican leadership. Obama did not nationalize the banks, but he did continue what Bush started, which was stabilizing them and giving them a ton of money to help spur lending and prevent panic and a run on the banks. This was very clearly a bi-partisan effort to prevent a complete collapse of our capitalistic system and it worked.
Increased regulations is a desirable thing from my viewpoint as these companies are not capable of self-regulating. The federal government plays an important role here protecting the interests of the common man. I offer up an example in the form of the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumer interests from unfair practices that would take advantage of the little man. Too much regulation is as bad as too little regulation, a light touch is required.
Bailing out the car companies, like bailing out the banks, was a necessity imo. The president has stated that he has no interest in keeping the federal government in the car business, but letting these companies collapse would have been much worse than bailing them out. Presently, both companies have stabilized and are in the process of paying the government back. I know you are for free-market solutions but would it really have been the ideal solution to see both these companies collapse? Wouldn't unemployment be still higher than it is today had we done that?
Proof?
Well, Hamilton proposed a national bank and proposed for the federal government to assume the debt of all the states, which helped them tremendously after being bankrupted by the revolutionary war. then-President George Washington went along with these Federalist policies. So I guess you would and could call our first President a (dirty, rotten) socialist.
this post is pretty long so I'll cut it off here
-
I'm back. Before I begin addressing some of your points I'd like to state that I'm not against the Republican party on principle. I admired what the party once was and my beef is really with my perception of what it has become, meaning I perceive it has deteriorated. I admire people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater for being intellectuals and standard bearers for the conservative cause, even if those two were not always right on every single issue; for example civil rights. Buckley later regretted not having supported the civil rights act, I'm not sure if Goldwater did or not. Civil rights is an example of an issue that, I feel, could only have been dealt with by the federal government. Another such issue is a coherent, comprehensive energy policy. I digress...These two are an example of a thoughtful, principled, intellectual Republican that I believe we've seen less and less of as time has gone by. When Reagan opened the door to the Christian Coalition to help himself get elected, he also opened the door to a lot of religious radicalism, extremism and ignorance that helped hijack the Republican party from its proud roots. This new crop of Tea Partiers is doing the same, with the rise of what I and many others like to refer to as the "know-nothings", the likes of Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino.
Two things are blatantly wrong with your statement in this paragraph. FIRST and foremost, Eisenhower attempted to legislate the Civil Rights Act back in the 50s. Wanna take a guess at WHO was most adamant in opposition??
LBJ......
As far as Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, et al, how DARE you say they are know-nothings!! The entire premise of congressmen was to have every day people (aka Average Joes) to be in Congress, NOT lawyers and such. They also served for FREE!! Imagine that?!?!?!? NO PAY!!! No free medical for the rest of their lives and NO retirement if even only after a few years.
It sounds to me like you guys are Classical Liberals and fiscal Conservatives.
Regarding my e-mail, since that has become an issue amongst some of you. What exactly is the problem? All of you seem proud of labeling yourself conservatives yet you seem offended that my e-mail is derogatory towards George W. Bush, a big-government Republican responsible for championing big-government policies such as the Patriot Act and TARP. Since I assume you are loyal to conservatism and not simply to party affiliation, I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and admit that George W. Bush was no real friend to small-government conservatism. Along this same train of thought, the current Majority leader in the House as well as the majority whip were both proponents of TARP, they argued passionately for its passage during the economic meltdown of 2008. So, again I am left to wonder, do you reflexively defend every politician with an R next to his name no matter their policies or will you criticize big-government Republicans as you do big-government Democrats? OK, onward to addressing some of your replies. Let's go in chronological order:
Many of us were against the Patriot Act and TARP when they were passed. You NEED to do some reading of the forum and our opinions on the issue. Generalizing is dangerous.
I think the goal right now is to stabilize the middle class, not so much to elevate the poor. I disagree that "most" of their money is being stolen. I've personally seen many times, the rich say "tax me more. I can afford it." Granted these are leftists, and not captains of industry. If we simply return to the tax rates for the rich that were in place under Clinton, it wouldn't break the back of the employers. when the bush tax rates were put in place they were originally set to expire in ten years, they were never meant to be permanent. If we keep giving tax cuts without ever raising taxes, it makes no sense to me, there has to be some sort of point where even conservatives say "we're bankrupt. We either need to seriously find some massive spending programs to cut, or raise taxes."
The reason that the Bush tax cuts weren't permanent was this thing called, "compromise" (you know, the GOP & Dems, working together).... We can start by cutting welfare and unemployment. Seriously, unemployment was designed to be a hand up, NOT a way of life. 99 weeks is becoming a way of life. Hence, there arises the term, "Socialist". Get people dependent on the Government and they will stay that way. After all, who really WANTS to work?? Next, we can reduce the number of Government employees.
ok? Nobody is proposing that we nationalize any industry, that I'm aware of.
Ummm, need I mention GM & Chrysler?? Since WHEN dos the President dictate what a CEO earns?? 0bamao certainly did!!
A powerful federal government, we have. I don't think we're in any danger of becoming a dictatorship. The way I see it, we're in greater danger of becoming a plutocracy. A great argument can be made that we already are.
It's commonly said that once an expansion of federal government is made, it's very hard to reign it back in. I criticize Obama for not amending the patriot act, for example, that was passed under the Bush presidency as I see certain portions of it as a big over-reach. But if you criticize Obama for something like that you also have to criticize Bush. What other freedoms, economic or political, has Obama taken from you?
Apparently, you have failed to keep up with the times and the news. 0bamao actually increased the reach of the Patriot Act. He had a chance to rid ius of that cumbersome monstrosity, but instead, he empowered it even more!!
Hmm, well I'm not familiar with some of these names. Some I recognize, but I was not aware that Obama worked closely with them. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the relationship with rev. Wright and Bill Ayers as a working relationship, for example. From what I've seen of Obama, he's big on that whole "let's find common ground and work together" thing. The fact that he once stood next to Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky at some gathering is not sufficient enough evidence for me to damn him, it sounds more like guilt-by-association. If he isn't letting Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky influence legislation then what exactly is the big deal? You all seem to think Obama is a big radical scary lefty pinko commie bastard, but I don't see him that way, I view him closer to being a moderate actually. He's remarkably moderate and rather milquetoast.
Bill Ayers has been to the White House NUMEROUS times,well over 100. Can you tell me that Bill Ayers, the terrorist, is NOT influencing decisions?? Secondly, many of 0bamao's plays (and other Dems, like Harry Reid) are taken right from Saul Alinsky's playbook.
You said a lot of stuff here so I'll try to dissect it point by point. The measures taken to stabilize the economy were necessary, and they were started under George W. Bush with approval and support from the Republican leadership. Obama did not nationalize the banks, but he did continue what Bush started, which was stabilizing them and giving them a ton of money to help spur lending and prevent panic and a run on the banks. This was very clearly a bi-partisan effort to prevent a complete collapse of our capitalistic system and it worked.
Increased regulations is a desirable thing from my viewpoint as these companies are not capable of self-regulating. The federal government plays an important role here protecting the interests of the common man. I offer up an example in the form of the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumer interests from unfair practices that would take advantage of the little man. Too much regulation is as bad as too little regulation, a light touch is required.
Bailing out the car companies, like bailing out the banks, was a necessity imo. The president has stated that he has no interest in keeping the federal government in the car business, but letting these companies collapse would have been much worse than bailing them out. Presently, both companies have stabilized and are in the process of paying the government back. I know you are for free-market solutions but would it really have been the ideal solution to see both these companies collapse? Wouldn't unemployment be still higher than it is today had we done that?
Well, Hamilton proposed a national bank and proposed for the federal government to assume the debt of all the states, which helped them tremendously after being bankrupted by the revolutionary war. then-President George Washington went along with these Federalist policies. So I guess you would and could call our first President a (dirty, rotten) socialist.
this post is pretty long so I'll cut it off here
The banks and the housing industry failure were a direct result of Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and many others that directed the banks to give home loans to people that would never qualify otherwise. Stated income?? WTF is that ?? Yes, a person could just SAY they made so much and get a loan.
The bigger fact IS that 0bamao has done more to progress Socialism than any other President. This is WHY the American Public handed the GOP a mandate on Nov 2nd. HOPEFULLY, the GOP won't fail us, but I have my reservations.
-
When RZZZA is my age, he will be sick of socialism....Social Security alone will have bankrupted this country. He'll be paying in half or more of what he makes to keep up the retirees....and industry will be...I don't know if it'll even exist...industry will be matching those funds if they exist further damaging the economy.
To a college kid Socialism ALWAYS seems like a good idea. But that's beause they are still getting spoonfed crap from Professors that have never gone out and tried to apply their theory in real life.
You're right...when he gets to our age and sees the amount of taxes that are taken from his check every month ...sees how it goes to a bunch of spolied thankless people who only know how to ask from more handouts...he'll understand.
He'll ask the same questions that we ask about why is it fair for you and I to bust our humps making money doing either what we have to or what we are talented at...providing the best we can for our families...only to be told that we are greedy and selfish for doing so that that to be "fair" we have to give OUR hard earned money to people without the motivation go get off the couch to take a piss much less find a job.
-
Guy,no one has flamed you...your choice of throwaway email name has been brought up as it relates to your supposed desire for civil discourse.
That you just shrugged off.
Several of us here have asked you pointed questions regarding your premises and have called on you to answer and defend.
You have not at this point so whining about treatment is a diversion.
Get back to the point you tried to make in the op and defend it against the points made in opposition.
I dare say that he is being treated nice than we would at HuffPo were we to go in there and counter their talking points with the same facts that we have with RZZZA here.
We wouldn't even get past the first post at DU or KOS.
So n00b if you've learned one thing so fat let it be this...the Liberals in this country that talk about "fairness and freedom of speech" only give lipservice to it. They are exactly what they acuse Conservatives of being.
If you take nothing else away from coming here...let it be the distruction of the myth that Conservatives are the close minded anti free speech crowd.
-
When Reagan opened the door to the Christian Coalition to help himself get elected, he also opened the door to a lot of religious radicalism, extremism and ignorance that helped hijack the Republican party from its proud roots.
Please cite examples to back this up. As it stands you are just spouting more Liberal talking point bullshit.
Again...if you're going to makes outlandish statements like this then at least TRY to back them up with sources and/or links.
This new crop of Tea Partiers is doing the same, with the rise of what I and many others like to refer to as the "know-nothings", the likes of Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and Carl Palidino.
What in your mind makes them "know nothings"? Sarah Palin had more political experience and certainly more real word business experience than the current President. Carl Palidino is a successful businessman and CEO of his own company. O'Donnell is the only one you might have a slight case against.
But then again...you say these stupid things with ZERO proof to substantiate your claim. This is what happenes when you just take what the MSM says as fact and don't think for yourself and get out and actually research and learn on your own. You call them know nothings...you trash Reagan because THAT'S WHAT YOU"VE BEEN TOLD TO THINK ABOUT THEM.
I can go to any number of discussion boards or pull up transcripts from tv shows or newspapers and find the exact same things you're repeating here.
-
Please cite examples to back this up. As it stands you are just spouting more Liberal talking point bullshit.
Again...if you're going to makes outlandish statements like this then at least TRY to back them up with sources and/or links.
What in your mind makes them "know nothings"? Sarah Palin had more political experience and certainly more real word business experience than the current President. Carl Palidino is a successful businessman and CEO of his own company. O'Donnell is the only one you might have a slight case against.
But then again...you say these stupid things with ZERO proof to substantiate your claim. This is what happenes when you just take what the MSM says as fact and don't think for yourself and get out and actually research and learn on your own. You call them know nothings...you trash Reagan because THAT'S WHAT YOU"VE BEEN TOLD TO THINK ABOUT THEM.
I can go to any number of discussion boards or pull up transcripts from tv shows or newspapers and find the exact same things you're repeating here.
Remember though he pretty much blew in here claiming the same about all of us.
More of the enlightenment from his higher education.
Tell us if you will RZZZA what you have majored in and where are you planning on going in life.
-
All of you seem proud of labeling yourself conservatives yet you seem offended that my e-mail is derogatory towards George W. Bush, a big-government Republican responsible for championing big-government policies such as the Patriot Act and TARP.
Most conservatives criticized Bush on all manner of things, from foreign policy (mostly paleocons and hard libertarians) to economics (from just about all types of conservatives) to Most of us were against TARP and the Patriot Act.
I think the goal right now is to stabilize the middle class, not so much to elevate the poor. I disagree that "most" of their money is being stolen. I've personally seen many times, the rich say "tax me more. I can afford it." Granted these are leftists, and not captains of industry. If we simply return to the tax rates for the rich that were in place under Clinton, it wouldn't break the back of the employers. when the bush tax rates were put in place they were originally set to expire in ten years, they were never meant to be permanent. If we keep giving tax cuts without ever raising taxes, it makes no sense to me, there has to be some sort of point where even conservatives say "we're bankrupt. We either need to seriously find some massive spending programs to cut, or raise taxes."
The Democrat party caters to the welfare and union crowds for votes, and has to deliver on those promises to keep getting them, which works for them because the votes are guaranteed and makes people dependent on government, while serving as an excuse to raise taxes. The best way to stabilize the middle class is to make conditions well enough for businesses large and small well enough to hire, and extending the Bush tax cuts will go a long way toward a genuine recovery.
ok? Nobody is proposing that we nationalize any industry, that I'm aware of.
Except healthcare. By forcing people to buy a commodity (that alone sets its own bad precedents), with no ability to opt out and get private care and by forcing healthcare providers to yield to government control.
A powerful federal government, we have. I don't think we're in any danger of becoming a dictatorship. The way I see it, we're in greater danger of becoming a plutocracy. A great argument can be made that we already are.
Woodrow Wilson seized control of the economy, suppressed dissent, and created a propaganda department.
-
Never have read the Federalist Papers or the Anti Federalist Papers, have you? IMO, that should be requisite before graduating High School. There are "Liberals" in the TRUE sense of the word. Our founding Fathers were true "Liberals". Then there are the Progressives of today's world, who have hijacked the term, "Liberal". The Progressives ARE Socialists to the core. If not Socialists, Marxists. I would even go as far as comparing some of them to the Fascist regimes.
Not only read them, but actually dissect and understand what they actually say.
-
It sounds to me like you guys are Classical Liberals and fiscal Conservatives. Which is fine to me, my beef is with social conservatives, religious fundamentalists and the "know-nothings" who make a virtue out of ignorance.
I was going to confine my comments to
When did homosexuality become a viable trait within natural selection?
You said a lot of stuff here so I'll try to dissect it point by point. The measures taken to stabilize the economy were necessary, and they were started under George W. Bush with approval and support from the Republican leadership. Obama did not nationalize the banks, but he did continue what Bush started, which was stabilizing them and giving them a ton of money to help spur lending and prevent panic and a run on the banks. This was very clearly a bi-partisan effort to prevent a complete collapse of our capitalistic system and it worked.
Bush was an idiot. The banks and housing market are still going to crash. All the bailout is doing is delaying the inevitable at an additional cost of trillions of dollars.
Increased regulations is a desirable thing from my viewpoint as these companies are not capable of self-regulating. The federal government plays an important role here protecting the interests of the common man. I offer up an example in the form of the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumer interests from unfair practices that would take advantage of the little man. Too much regulation is as bad as too little regulation, a light touch is required.
If you want to keep some mining company from dumping mercury into a river upstream from farmer Brown, that's fine but liberals want to regulate what we eat and how much.
When your politicians can prove they can regulate themselves then we can talk about whether or not they should regulate what is good for the common man. Just make sure they answer all FOIA requests and don't dump their data sets.
Bailing out the car companies, like bailing out the banks, was a necessity imo. The president has stated that he has no interest in keeping the federal government in the car business, but letting these companies collapse would have been much worse than bailing them out. Presently, both companies have stabilized and are in the process of paying the government back.
They would have to make their IPO at $134/share to pay us back.
So much for your vaunted success.
And you're a fool for quoting anything Obama said.
Well, Hamilton proposed a national bank and proposed for the federal government to assume the debt of all the states, which helped them tremendously after being bankrupted by the revolutionary war. then-President George Washington went along with these Federalist policies. So I guess you would and could call our first President a (dirty, rotten) socialist.
Did they nationalize the the horse and carriage industry?
It's commonly said that once an expansion of federal government is made, it's very hard to reign it back in. I criticize Obama for not amending the patriot act, for example, that was passed under the Bush presidency as I see certain portions of it as a big over-reach. But if you criticize Obama for something like that you also have to criticize Bush. What other freedoms, economic or political, has Obama taken from you?
Defending the lives of US citizens is the obligation of government. If it fails to do so it loses it legitimacy to exist.
Abrogating the right of primary property holders to seize entire industries and provide the money to favored political factions is not.
Hmm, well I'm not familiar with some of these names. Some I recognize, but I was not aware that Obama worked closely with them. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the relationship with rev. Wright and Bill Ayers as a working relationship, for example. From what I've seen of Obama, he's big on that whole "let's find common ground and work together" thing. The fact that he once stood next to Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky at some gathering is not sufficient enough evidence for me to damn him, it sounds more like guilt-by-association. If he isn't letting Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky influence legislation then what exactly is the big deal? You all seem to think Obama is a big radical scary lefty pinko commie bastard, but I don't see him that way, I view him closer to being a moderate actually. He's remarkably moderate and rather milquetoast.
Obama began his political career in Ayers and Dohrn's living room. He worked for years alongside Ayers at the Annenberg foundation. Ayers is a terrorist with blood on his hands from bombing the Pentagon and police stations. He should be dead, not a president's friend.
He studied under and taught the principles of Saul Alinsky.
Frank Marshall Davis was a childhood mentor.
Rev Wright was Obama's political patron for 22 years.
Obama hired self-avowed communist radical Van Jones.
Denying and down-playing is not a rebuttal and Obama's actions track right along with everything these shit bags espouse.
-
Bailing out the car companies, like bailing out the banks, was a necessity imo.
Why?
The president has stated that he has no interest in keeping the federal government in the car business, but letting these companies collapse would have been much worse than bailing them out.
Proof? Once the camels nose is under the tent flap it's too late. The presecedent has been set for it to happen again the next time Liberals "feel" like a car company...a bank...airline(insert union run company here) is about to fail.
The companies were collapsing due to unwieldy and unsustainable demands placed on them by the labor unions. Demands that force you and I to pay for their largess. Roughly the first $3-5K we pay on any automobile goes to pay union benefits that the car manufacturer has to shell out.
The prime example of WHY the Feds didn't need to intervene with the car companies is Ford. The only one of the "big three" to not take Federal money is the only one showing any kind of real profit right now.
Presently, both companies have stabilized and are in the process of paying the government back.
It will be decades before the other two finally pay off what they sold their soul to the Feds to get.
GM has had to delay it's IPO twice to try and get profits to a level that people will want to buy stock in them again.
-
Well, Hamilton proposed a national bank and proposed for the federal government to assume the debt of all the states, which helped them tremendously after being bankrupted by the revolutionary war. then-President George Washington went along with these Federalist policies. So I guess you would and could call our first President a (dirty, rotten) socialist.
For someone who claims to be a history buff...you seemed to have failed to study a very basic piece of history....the Constitution.
From Article 1 Section 8:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
To equate Federalist with Socialist shows the shallowness of your understanding of pretty much everything.
Again you should REALLY wean yourself off of the Liberal talking points and try to study actualy facts before you shoot your mouth off again.
-
oh please, I'm not embarrassed to be proven wrong and I'm not worried about looking stupid. If I was worried about looking stupid, I would never have the guts to say anything.
I also don't claim to be smarter than you all or more right about anything, I simply stated that it seems wrong for Tea Partiers to claim the imagery and spirit of the founding fathers in the name of smaller government when many of the founding fathers were supportive of larger government. I'd like to continue this eventually but unfortunately, for now, I have real life things to attend to. Thanks to everyone for replying and being civil thus far. We obviously disagree bu the relative civility of our Republic always swells my heart with pride for my country.
That statement alone tells me you are too stupid to live.
-
You said a lot of stuff here so I'll try to dissect it point by point. The measures taken to stabilize the economy were necessary, and they were started under George W. Bush with approval and support from the Republican leadership. (Bush made a HUGE mistake with the TARP bill. I didn't agree with it at all.)
Obama did not nationalize the banks, but he did continue what Bush started, which was stabilizing them and giving them a ton of money to help spur lending and prevent panic and a run on the banks. (I believe what the imposter did WAS NOT stabilize them. Gave them money to help spur lending and prevent panic?! Yeah, how's that working out for ya?! If people don't have money to buy or a job to make money to buy, who borrows the money from the banks?! By the way, there is A TON of uncertainty out there. ;) Let's not forget the car companies that the imposter "bought".)
This was very clearly a bi-partisan effort to prevent a complete collapse of our capitalistic system and it worked. (It was bi-partisan?! And,...it worked? Really?! So how's that economy doing? How's that unemployment rate?! Why does the Fed have to do Quantitative Easing 2.0?!)
-
That statement alone tells me you are too stupid to live.
Can I now add him/her/it to the other 60 million?
-
For someone who claims to be a history buff...you seemed to have failed to study a very basic piece of history....the Constitution.
From Article 1 Section 8:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
To equate Federalist with Socialist shows the shallowness of your understanding of pretty much everything.
Again you should REALLY wean yourself off of the Liberal talking points and try to study actualy facts before you shoot your mouth off again.
so...nationalizing the banking industry is not socialism? If Obama had done it, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs. But since it was done under George Washington, you can't really bring yourself to call the father of our country a socialist, can you?
-
so...nationalizing the banking industry is not socialism? If Obama had done it, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs. But since it was done under George Washington, you can't really bring yourself to call the father of our country a socialist, can you?
(http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo127/DParker75089/TheStupidIsStrongWithThisOne.jpg)
-
so...nationalizing the banking industry is not socialism? If Obama had done it, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs. But since it was done under George Washington, you can't really bring yourself to call the father of our country a socialist, can you?
Washington took sides in a debate about establishing a national bank, not--as your pet socialist has done--seize private entities, impose his rules and prop them up with money taken from private citizens.
-
The debate was controversial back then between a centralized bank and decentralized banks, washington took the side of federalists, the side of big(ger) government. Yet for some reason, you guys do not condemn that. Seems more than a little inconsistent to me.
explain, please
-
The debate was controversial back then between a centralized bank and decentralized banks, washington took the side of federalists, the side of big(ger) government. Yet for some reason, you guys do not condemn that. Seems more than a little inconsistent to me.
explain, please
What inconsistency?
I repeat: Washington, and no one in those days, was seizing private banks.
You're conflating small government with no government, probably deliberately so. Regulating currency is a legitmate function and a constitutional mandate. The debate wasn't IF to do it but how to BEST do it...and with the least amount of harm to the private citizenry. Something your side seems wholly unconcerned about.
We're obligated to have a military. Growing the military to meet threats is not growing government it's meeting the obligations of its constitutional mandates.
No where can you show where education, energy, welfare, labor law etc etc etc is a mandate for the federal congress or the president. The best you'll ever offer are contorted rationalizations, i.e. the interstate commerce clause allows for regulating whether or not Easy bake Ovens can have an incandescent light bulb.
If individual states want those things they have all the power they need unless your power-grubbing crooks in DC usurp that power.
-
so...nationalizing the banking industry is not socialism? If Obama had done it, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs. But since it was done under George Washington, you can't really bring yourself to call the father of our country a socialist, can you?
Again you've done nothing but blown a lot of hot air around here to back this moronic claim of yours up.
You asked what it was I was asking about that you've said without an proof.
Start with this BS n00b.
-
I didn't realize this needed any proof. you need me to prove that the national bank was founded while Washington was president? You need proof that Washington favored Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist policies, over the policies of Republican Thomas Jefferson?
-
Damn:
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k179/Apogeespeaker/Failcow.jpg)
-
I didn't realize this needed any proof. you need me to prove that the national bank was founded while Washington was president? You need proof that Washington favored Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist policies, over the policies of Republican Thomas Jefferson?
No. You need to prove creating an institution to meet a constitutional mandate is the same as nationalizing private assets.
We're saying you're comparing apples to oranges. I provided a post to illustrate as much.
If our illustration and contention is wrong you need to do better than say, "Nuh-uh!" and/or switch subjects.
-
Hi,
I was out of town and late to this party. As a guy who has been to many tea parties, supported conservative candidates over the years etc. let me chime in.
Forget the damn labels for a minute and look at facts.
I am opposed to something for nothing, you work, you eat. You choose not to work, you go hungry. That is the way it is in most countries in the world.
I am not dispassionate, those who truly cannot work, birth defects, and/or other things should be provided for. If we stopped subsidizing the lazy we would have plenty to go around for the needy.
All men are created equal, and have a right to PURSUE LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The government nor any society in the world guarantees equal results. You do not penalize success in the name of "fairness" and confiscate what they achieved to give to those who choose to live off the government as a lifestyle of choice.
When Hoover and Roosevelt were sparring over what government's role should be during the great depression, Hoover wanted to subsidize businesses to create jobs so people could work and get back on their feet. Roosevelt started unemployment and wanted to give the money directly to the people.
As it said in my daughter's history book, and I quote Mr. Hoover....."The minute you allow the public direct access to the treasury you will create chaos beyone anything mankind has ever known."
Would seem to me that Hoover was correct. Once politicians on both sides of the aisle realized they could spend our hard earned tax dollars to buy votes they turned it into an art form. Now we subsidize and incentivize out of wedlock birth so millions of Americans are on the government dole and therefore must continue to vote for those who feed them. We give people in this country illegally money, free health care etc. in hopes of someday giving them amnesty so they too can be democrats and keep the party in power.
The socialists don't give a damn about the people, they find their programs are best suited to maintian their power.
A conservative looks at success as how many people they can get off the government dole, into the work force, bettering their life and the lives of their family. Conservatives believe it is the parents and the family that know best, as do the local governments and the role of the federal government should be as intended in the constitution, to provide for the common defense and regulate trade. The rest should be left to the states.
A socialist looks at success as how they can steal from producers, give more to those on the dole so they can maintain their power. They more they can consolidate power federally and take it away from the states and the people the more they insure their power for generations. Why does Mexico suck? Might start with the fact the ruling party has ruled for 100 years. Look at the US cities where the democrats have ruled for close to 100 years, looks like abject failure to me.
5412
-
I didn't realize this needed any proof. you need me to prove that the national bank was founded while Washington was president? You need proof that Washington favored Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist policies, over the policies of Republican Thomas Jefferson?
Just for the record, and since you're such a history maven, you should know this.......prior to 1782, many private banks, and government entities (cities, states, and even private companies) were issuing their own currency........Washington (reluctantly) elected to agree to formation of a national bank in order to place the country on the path to a standardized currency, and although he was reluctant, he saw this action to be the most painless and expeditious manner in which to accomplish this constitutional mandate.
doc
-
This is for RZZZA. The rest of you have probably already seen me post it more than once, so forgive the repeat:
"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restaint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each soveriegn citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome."
Robert Heinlein penned that and it is true.
-
I had to H5 5412. :-)
-
A conservative looks at success as how many people they can get off the government dole, into the work force, bettering their life and the lives of their family. Conservatives believe it is the parents and the family that know best, as do the local governments and the role of the federal government should be as intended in the constitution, to provide for the common defense and regulate trade. The rest should be left to the states.
One of the finest definitions I've seen on here yet, a great perspective. :cheersmate: and H5 also!
-
One of the finest definitions I've seen on here yet, a great perspective. :cheersmate: and H5 also!
Hi,
I thank you both.
Personally I am fed up with the crap, the lies and the irresponsibility of our elected officials. If we could just get an honest press instead of one with stupid agendas we could still save this country.
Enough already,
5412
-
"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restaint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each soveriegn citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome."
:
Good point..love how the Dems always say we vote against our "best interest". That post pretty much sums it up why we cote the way we do.
-
RZZZA has one question and one question only that he needs to answer before he can proceed here.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,50546.msg564353.html#msg564353
-
RZZZA has one question and one question only that he needs to answer before he can proceed here.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,50546.msg564353.html#msg564353
The "QUESTION" has finally been asked.......
doc
-
The "QUESTION" has finally been asked.......
doc
And now there is the smell of Sulfur in the air. :-)
-
Hi,
I thank you both.
Personally I am fed up with the crap, the lies and the irresponsibility of our elected officials. If we could just get an honest press instead of one with stupid agendas we could still save this country.
Enough already,
5412
I will add my H5 to you as well, and would like permission to share that missive with others, as well as maybe a quote for my tagline? With Acknowledgement to you, of course.
-
I will add my H5 to you as well, and would like permission to share that missive with others, as well as maybe a quote for my tagline? With Acknowledgement to you, of course.
Hi,
I am flattered, of course permission granted.
regards,
5412
-
I'm really late to this party but, I just had to comment on this.
If that's socialism then you may as well call taxes in general socialism.
Taxes are socialist when the purpose of taxation is not to fund the constitutional duties of the federal govt but, to redistribute wealth. If you actually apply the constitution most of what the federal govt does is not what our founding fathers had in mind for the federal govt nor is it constitutional.
-
Hi,
I am flattered, of course permission granted.
regards,
5412
Thank you very much.