The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Ohio Barbarian on January 13, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
-
Greetings. I'm a card-carrying Socialist who mostly frequents Left Underground and Fire Dog Lake. I am neither a DUer nor an Elmer, for whatever that's worth. I'm also a Navy veteran of the Gulf War era(surface Navy--I don't get on ships that deliberately sink or jump out of perfectly good airplanes, hence the avatar), consider myself an American patriot, and have the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal to prove it to my satisfaction.
Freeper and Revolution had the gall and the courtesy, IMHO, to come over and express themselves on LU awhile back. Like Mr. Worf on Star Trek, I admire gall. With permission from welshTerrier2, I am going to post a reply he made to one of my OP's on LU recently. I would honestly like to know what y'all think about it. Here it is:
" 'Originally Posted by Ohio Barbarian
The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.
(Emphasis mine).'
There is no perspective of our current plight more important than this one.
When we speak of "defending jobs", we need to clarify what we mean. We have to go beyond the mere mechanics of protecting workers with things like putting an end to the exporting of jobs or raising minimum wage rates or protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace.
All of these things, while critically important, address only the symptoms of a far more deadly disease. The disease is the perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers.
We cannot let stand a system that values and empowers capital and profits over workers. Because if we do, as we have, we endorse a system that concentrates wealth without limits.
Excessively concentrated wealth, through its lobbyists and its campaign dollars, always perverts democracy. All our little lefty websites have really helped highlight that message. Occupy Wall Street, too, has helped highlight that message.
We're a hit. The American public has finally awakened to the reality that the extreme concentration of wealth has perverted any semblance of democracy. This awareness was a long time coming and it still has much further to go.
The question now will become what to do about the problem
Some will try to restrain the beast with regulation. We'll see the usually parade of campaign finance and lobby reform. It won't work. It never works. It can't work. Big money, brick by brick, will disassemble any walls you might build between democracy and money. If excessive wealth exists, it will always corrupt democratic institutions to serve itself. People need to understand this. The intent of regulation is well-meaning; it cannot ultimately succeed. The beast will always escape your confines.
So, what then is the true path to democracy and prosperity?
This is where, sadly, most of us, even those who think of themselves as "the Left", have not awakened at all. Somehow, we have been so deeply brainwashed and hypnotized by all the shiny gold and trinkets, that we've come to believe that the limitless acquisition of wealth is the ultimate entitlement program. "Everyone should be able to acquire as much wealth as they possibly can." We see that as the American way. We that as "freedom". We see that as a meritocracy that rightfully rewards the successful with vast riches.
People, you can't have it both ways. The acquisition of unlimited wealth, i.e. a political and economic system that severely concentrates wealth, has poisoned our democracy. You need to let go of the myth that the freedom to acquire and hold excessive wealth can exist side-by-side with democracy. It cannot.
The solutions you've sought that try to temper the abuses of concentrated wealth with regulation have failed. As wealth has grown more concentrated, democracy and prosperity for most of us has radically declined. The only solution to the problem is to cap wealth. We need to radically reduce the concentration of wealth. We need to understand that regulatory measures like higher marginal tax rates with steeper graduation are not going to get the job done. Such measures help with future income but do very little to close the wealth gap.
I realize it may jar your long-held beliefs but it's time to seize wealth and limit it to the point that it can no longer buy a greater share of government than the average citizen has access to. Democracy means equally shared power. Democracy cannot exist when we allow the gap between rich and poor to grow as large as it has.
To quote the OP once again:
'The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy'."
So, what do you think? Can democracy survive when unlimited wealth is allowed? I don't think it can, and I think history supports my position. In some important ways, limiting the power of wealth and privilege in order to maintain a stable society can be interpreted as a very conservative point of view. I am saying that unlimited capitalism is not a conservative position, but a radical one that celebrates unlimited selfishness, greed, and lust for power over others.
It is not my intention to start a flame war or to piss anyone off. I just want to see what you think of Welsh's position, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and why. Thanks.
-
So, you will be satisfied with putting all the power in the hands of a few "party elites". You will be satisfied with sweeping streets with a broom in exchange for whatever the party elite thinks is appropriate; a cold, one room apartment while the party elite enjoy the best of everything.
Awh the hell with it. That's all the time I'm going to waste. You're also probably a lazyass, die hard union member who wants the "American Dream" handed to him on a silver platter without having to work for it.
You just want to exchange one master for an even worse one.
-
So, you will be satisfied with putting all the power in the hands of a few "party elites". You will be satisfied with sweeping streets with a broom in exchange for whatever the party elite thinks is appropriate; a cold, one room apartment while the party elite enjoy the best of everything.
Awh the hell with it. That's all the time I'm going to waste. You're also probably a lazyass, die hard union member who wants the "American Dream" handed to him on a silver platter without having to work for it.
You just want to exchange one master for an even worse one.
Wrong, oh waver of the flag of the first state to secede from the Union. You are confusing me with Communists, and you have absolutely nothing to say about the post. Where in it is any reference to a party elite? And I hate street sweeping. Or even pier sweeping. I've actually done THAT.
There's bound to be someone out there who can do better than this.
-
Wrong, oh waver of the flag of the first state to secede from the Union. You are confusing me with Communists, and you have absolutely nothing to say about the post. Where in it is any reference to a party elite? And I hate street sweeping. Or even pier sweeping. I've actually done THAT.
There's bound to be someone out there who can do better than this.
Oh yeah, I'm a flag waver. I got dead limbs in my family tree from American wars from before the revolution, in the revolution and in every major conflict since then (except the most recent mideast wars). A brother to my great-so-many grandfather (who served in The Continental Army) may have been one of the first Marines. Records show that he was a Marine serving aboard ship less than a year after their formation.
And S.C. is a fiesty little state. There were more revolutionary battles fraught in S.C. than any other colony. We love independence.
I was self employed for 40 years. The hired help took more advantage of me than I ever took of them....and that's the way it usually is.
-
Wrong, oh waver of the flag of the first state to secede from the Union. You are confusing me with Communists, and you have absolutely nothing to say about the post. Where in it is any reference to a party elite? And I hate street sweeping. Or even pier sweeping. I've actually done THAT.
There's bound to be someone out there who can do better than this.
It's remotely possible that we've had "socialists" here before, and consider responding, point by point, to a lengthy diatribe a useless waste of our time.
This is a conservative site.......you are (for the most part) welcome to post here, so long as you don't make a nuisance of yourself, denigrate the military, post materials supporting the more bizarre positions of Ron Paul, or break the rules (and I suggest that you read them........both the general board rules, as well as the specific rules posted at the top of each forum).
We share your regret that your apparent "home" crashed and burned, but be aware that our membership may express "intolerance" for your political ideas.......which is their privilege here.........and I will defend that vigorously.
My personal opinion, in response to your title question: Socialism sucks.......to paraphrase the words of Lady Margaret Thatcher....."Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money.......". It has failed everytime it has been attempted in whatever form or variation. It's in the painful process of failing in the EU now. One might wish to heed the lessons of history......
As I posted over on LU, I'm a proud member of what you euphemistically refer to as the "1%", and you aren't getting mine without a lot of bloodshed.......mostly yours.......
doc
-
My personal opinion, in response to your title question: Socialism sucks.......to paraphrase the words of Lady Margaret Thatcher....."Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money.......". It has failed everytime it has been attempted in whatever form or variation. It's in the painful process of failing in the EU now. One might wish to heed the lessons of history......
+1, with the addition that Socialism will always suck as long as there is human nature. A truly Socialistic structure may work in an ant nest or a beehive, but that is because they don't have the individual drive to acquire as much as possible. Among primates, it never will.
Socialism will always end up with tyranny by a semi-hereditary "elite" and suppression of those who are not in the "elite". This is because socialism cannot tolerate competition. If something comes along to compete with a socialist idea, the socialist government must suppress it or be shown to be inferior. "All animals are equal, some are more equal than others"
-
What percentage of my labor do you think you're entitled to?
-
...
When we speak of "defending jobs", we need to clarify what we mean. We have to go beyond the mere mechanics of protecting workers with things like putting an end to the exporting of jobs or raising minimum wage rates or protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace.
You can't prevent the outsourcing of jobs in any even partly free economic system.
When you make the cost of doing business so high as to make ROI meaningless the business will either close, outsource or demand nationalisation such that they no longer have to worry about profitability.
Minimum wage laws do little to benefit society at large, in main part because as the cost of doing business goes up so too does the prices that business must charge to maintain viability. The net result is that the products and services marketed through that company become proportionally unaffordable to the same collection of people that demanded higher minimum wages.
All of these things, while critically important, address only the symptoms of a far more deadly disease. The disease is the perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers.
I fail to see the problem. Bosses are bosses for a reason. For the most part they've invested much time and sweat into getting to a management position - and are willing and able to make sure that business operates for the most part smoothly.
If you have a problem with what bosses are paid - invest the same amount of time and energy into getting into their position and get back to me about how unfair their pay is.
To have a private company run by the workers would be like having the army run by PFC's.
We cannot let stand a system that values and empowers capital and profits over workers. Because if we do, as we have, we endorse a system that concentrates wealth without limits.
How much did Obama raise through donations from wealthy leftists , and what ratio is that to the amount donated to his opposition ?
I get pretty snotty with anyone who would seek to limit my wealth to some arbitrary figure.
Excessively concentrated wealth, through its lobbyists and its campaign dollars, always perverts democracy. All our little lefty websites have really helped highlight that message. Occupy Wall Street, too, has helped highlight that message.
We're a hit. The American public has finally awakened to the reality that the extreme concentration of wealth has perverted any semblance of democracy. This awareness was a long time coming and it still has much further to go.
Yeah - speak to the left about that whole perversion of democracy through lobbyists and campaign dollars. People in glass houses and all that.
As for the OWS crowd - don't believe your own press. You are not the 99%. No one really cares too much about OWS outside the hard left. When even your water-carriers in the MSM give you jack-diddly in the way of air time it's time to accept that the movement, is dead.
The question now will become what to do about the problem
Some will try to restrain the beast with regulation. We'll see the usually parade of campaign finance and lobby reform. It won't work. It never works. It can't work. Big money, brick by brick, will disassemble any walls you might build between democracy and money. If excessive wealth exists, it will always corrupt democratic institutions to serve itself. People need to understand this. The intent of regulation is well-meaning; it cannot ultimately succeed. The beast will always escape your confines.
I'd like you to define exactly what you mean by excessive wealth ? Is it only excessive when it reaches a certain ratio as compared to the poorest person in the country , or have you got an arbitrary figure in mind ?
Regulation might be "well intended" - but regulation compliance is another huge cost of doing business and another main motivating factor for outsourcing and the "brain-drain" where competent staff choose to work elsewhere.
So, what then is the true path to democracy and prosperity?
This is where, sadly, most of us, even those who think of themselves as "the Left", have not awakened at all. Somehow, we have been so deeply brainwashed and hypnotized by all the shiny gold and trinkets, that we've come to believe that the limitless acquisition of wealth is the ultimate entitlement program. "Everyone should be able to acquire as much wealth as they possibly can." We see that as the American way. We that as "freedom". We see that as a meritocracy that rightfully rewards the successful with vast riches.
Everyone should indeed be able to acquire as much wealth as they can. This is indeed freedom. The moment you tell me that I cannot be worth what my abilities can acquire for me - then you are indeed reducing my freedom.
People, you can't have it both ways. The acquisition of unlimited wealth, i.e. a political and economic system that severely concentrates wealth, has poisoned our democracy. You need to let go of the myth that the freedom to acquire and hold excessive wealth can exist side-by-side with democracy. It cannot.
Strawman.
The solutions you've sought that try to temper the abuses of concentrated wealth with regulation have failed. As wealth has grown more concentrated, democracy and prosperity for most of us has radically declined. The only solution to the problem is to cap wealth. We need to radically reduce the concentration of wealth. We need to understand that regulatory measures like higher marginal tax rates with steeper graduation are not going to get the job done. Such measures help with future income but do very little to close the wealth gap.
Yeah - because such measures have worked ever so well when they've been tried in the past , right ?
I realize it may jar your long-held beliefs but it's time to seize wealth and limit it to the point that it can no longer buy a greater share of government than the average citizen has access to. Democracy means equally shared power. Democracy cannot exist when we allow the gap between rich and poor to grow as large as it has.
What you seem to be demanding is equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Is this right ?
To quote the OP once again:
'The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy'."
Your fight to defend your living standards is made behind your desk, or the serving counter and chip fryer. Go for it.
The fight to defend jobs would be made a lot easier if the left wouldn't constantly demand things that make preserving the company that provides those jobse - harder.
So, what do you think? Can democracy survive when unlimited wealth is allowed? I don't think it can, and I think history supports my position. In some important ways, limiting the power of wealth and privilege in order to maintain a stable society can be interpreted as a very conservative point of view. I am saying that unlimited capitalism is not a conservative position, but a radical one that celebrates unlimited selfishness, greed, and lust for power over others.
You're not the first person and won't be the last person to think this way. Seems to me that every previous instance where someone has thought like that and obtained the power to make it so , it has resulted in mass starvation and has had exactly the opposite effect on "democracy" that you seem to think it will.
In order to limit wealth in the way you desire you need a all powerful entity to monitor and ensure compliance - which pretty much means you will have a system that is far less democratic than the one that presently exists.
It is not my intention to start a flame war or to piss anyone off. I just want to see what you think of Welsh's position, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and why. Thanks.
Far as I'm concerned - it's just the thesis of the enemy.
I hope that one day we don't have to look at each other over the trenches, but am less confident it won't come to that each day.
-
Oh yeah, I'm a flag waver. I got dead limbs in my family tree from American wars from before the revolution, in the revolution and in every major conflict since then (except the most recent mideast wars). A brother to my great-so-many grandfather (who served in The Continental Army) may have been one of the first Marines. Records show that he was a Marine serving aboard ship less than a year after their formation.
And S.C. is a fiesty little state. There were more revolutionary battles fraught in S.C. than any other colony. We love independence.
I was self employed for 40 years. The hired help took more advantage of me than I ever took of them....and that's the way it usually is.
Not getting into the barbarian's OP, JohnnyReb, cuz quite honestly it didn't hold my attention, but everyone seems to forget that South Carolina was LEGALLY under no ****ing obligation whatsoever to remain in the union at the time it seceeded. End of story. The fact that Lincoln chose to attack it, and other states, doesn't negate the fact that he was LEGALLY in the wrong.
Continue to wave that flag, Johnny! :cheersmate:
-
What percentage of my labor do you think you're entitled to?
How about the labor/effort it costs to put a boot up the ass of anyone who stretches out their lazy hand to pilfer your hard earned money?
-
The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.
You're confusing politics and economics. Even China knows that individual wealth can co-exist with political supression. NAZI (read Socialist) Germany did, too. Again.......to paraphrase the words of Lady Margaret Thatcher....."Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money.......".
It was British and French socialism in the guise of the "reparations" contained in the Treaty of Versalies after WW1 that led to the ultimate socialist NAZI Germany. It was the strength of capitalism in the guise of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt post WW2 Germany and Japan.
-
I'd like to see him defend our Government run amock.
How about we treat the Federal Goverment they same way you wish to treat the "rich"? If not, why not?
Do you think it's OK for the Federal Government to "make" more money through taxation than oil companies? If so, why?
How much wealth should ANY public employee be allowed to amass? Use Ms. Pelosi as an example.
If "fair wages" reach 20+ dollars an hour, you woulden't mind paying 10+ bucks for a Happy Meal, right?
-
You can't prevent the outsourcing of jobs in any even partly free economic system.
{snip}
I hope that one day we don't have to look at each other over the trenches, but am less confident it won't come to that each day.
Nice job LC, now let's see if you get an answer.
I for one would be interested in knowing which socialist state the OP would like to model his utopia on.
What I believe needs to be done is to remove the Crony from Capitalism and politics. To that end I wonder how the op might feel about a couple simple measures: 1) A constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. 2) A constitutional amendment for term limits. 3) A constitutional amendment which prevents congress from exempting itself from any law.
I would recommend the following article as a primer on Crony Capitalism.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/12/12/exactly_what_is_crony_capitalism_anyway_99412.html
-
I will take you up on one statement.
This is where, sadly, most of us, even those who think of themselves as "the Left", have not awakened at all. Somehow, we have been so deeply brainwashed and hypnotized by all the shiny gold and trinkets, that we've come to believe that the limitless acquisition of wealth is the ultimate entitlement program. "Everyone should be able to acquire as much wealth as they possibly can." We see that as the American way. We that as "freedom". We see that as a meritocracy that rightfully rewards the successful with vast riches.
It would appear that you are saying the left has bastardized the great concept of socialism because it seeks the wealth of this nation for its own leisure.
They just hope to aquire it via arbitrary theft (taxation) and expect it to be dutifully passed on to them via an all powerful central government.
The shadowy underbelly of what you propose is a theoretical subsistence system where there is no wealth period.
Everyone reduced to the lowest common denominator so to speak and joyfully toiling for their own existence as well as their neighbors.
Please explain to me how in the face of human nature how all tasks of an organized and civil society get performed without an incentive system?
Wouldn`t this require the abolition of private property and if so where does security lie as everything would be everyones for the taking?
If a task is going undone how is it determined who is going to do it and how is it enforced?
Where does the required up front level of capital come from that spurs innovation and invention?
How does it not dissolve to tyrannical communism as the 20th century and up to today knows it?
-
ok you got a large post there that im going to try to break down piece by piece to explain my opinions... and i blab a lot and cannot coherently say what im trying to explain so i'm sorry if my post doesnt make sense at first. feel free to reply with questions or comments.
The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.
"democratic rights" ???
i dont want my rights voted in by a majority, you shouldnt either. the majority can change them at any time and not necessarily towards the better.
"inalienable rights" that concept seems to make a little more sense to me.
When we speak of "defending jobs", we need to clarify what we mean. We have to go beyond the mere mechanics of protecting workers with things like putting an end to the exporting of jobs or raising minimum wage rates or protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace.
All of these things, while critically important, address only the symptoms of a far more deadly disease. The disease is the perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers.
We cannot let stand a system that values and empowers capital and profits over workers. Because if we do, as we have, we endorse a system that concentrates wealth without limits.
imbalance of power between worker and boss???
the worker has all the power he needs. if dont like your job, quit. if you like your job but your afraid of losing it, make yourself indispensable.
and if you think you can manage a business better than your bosses, quit and start your own business in direct competition to prove your point.
Excessively concentrated wealth, through its lobbyists and its campaign dollars, always perverts democracy. All our little lefty websites have really helped highlight that message. Occupy Wall Street, too, has helped highlight that message.
its either ignorance or arrogance if you think your lefty sites and OWS are not doing the same. (trying to pervert democracy) any influence is a form of perversion. my strongest belief on this is that the media (right, left, center, top, bottom) aids the perversion more than any "concentration of wealth"
We're a hit. The American public has finally awakened to the reality that the extreme concentration of wealth has perverted any semblance of democracy. This awareness was a long time coming and it still has much further to go.
sorry but thats a false hope in my eyes
The question now will become what to do about the problem
Some will try to restrain the beast with regulation. We'll see the usually parade of campaign finance and lobby reform. It won't work. It never works. It can't work. Big money, brick by brick, will disassemble any walls you might build between democracy and money. If excessive wealth exists, it will always corrupt democratic institutions to serve itself. People need to understand this. The intent of regulation is well-meaning; it cannot ultimately succeed. The beast will always escape your confines.
can we take a look back at history for some guidance? 1770's is a good place to start for us here in the USA. how life under british rule?? not that great. so some people thought they could regulate themselves better and decided to go on there own. Created their own govt. Things went up from there. i wont try to pinpoint the exact time we were most prosperous, but i will say we've been declining. we are also less free today. i correlate the two. this is why i feel less tyranny = more prosperity. ignore it if you want. less govt power equals less "power" (you call it democracy) that can be perverted. if we would restart our govt the way it was intended to be, the majority of the left, right, middle would all be happier. only the progressives (left and right) who really just want that extra power given to them, hate liberty (which i correlate to means of prosperty).
So, what then is the true path to democracy and prosperity?
This is where, sadly, most of us, even those who think of themselves as "the Left", have not awakened at all. Somehow, we have been so deeply brainwashed and hypnotized by all the shiny gold and trinkets, that we've come to believe that the limitless acquisition of wealth is the ultimate entitlement program. "Everyone should be able to acquire as much wealth as they possibly can." We see that as the American way. We that as "freedom". We see that as a meritocracy that rightfully rewards the successful with vast riches.
People, you can't have it both ways. The acquisition of unlimited wealth, i.e. a political and economic system that severely concentrates wealth, has poisoned our democracy. You need to let go of the myth that the freedom to acquire and hold excessive wealth can exist side-by-side with democracy. It cannot.
The solutions you've sought that try to temper the abuses of concentrated wealth with regulation have failed. As wealth has grown more concentrated, democracy and prosperity for most of us has radically declined. The only solution to the problem is to cap wealth. We need to radically reduce the concentration of wealth. We need to understand that regulatory measures like higher marginal tax rates with steeper graduation are not going to get the job done. Such measures help with future income but do very little to close the wealth gap.
I realize it may jar your long-held beliefs but it's time to seize wealth and limit it to the point that it can no longer buy a greater share of government than the average citizen has access to. Democracy means equally shared power. Democracy cannot exist when we allow the gap between rich and poor to grow as large as it has.
to repeat it is not wealth or the concentration of it that is the problem. it is the tyranny of govt, perverted by the democracy of progressive movements. limit govt, limit tyranny, limit the perversion. return to the means to allow prosperity. IT IS NOT BY ACCIDENT, that it goes "LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" and not "tyranny leads to happiness in life"
To quote the OP once again:
'The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy'."
So, what do you think? Can democracy survive when unlimited wealth is allowed? I don't think it can, and I think history supports my position. In some important ways, limiting the power of wealth and privilege in order to maintain a stable society can be interpreted as a very conservative point of view. I am saying that unlimited capitalism is not a conservative position, but a radical one that celebrates unlimited selfishness, greed, and lust for power over others.
It is not my intention to start a flame war or to piss anyone off. I just want to see what you think of Welsh's position, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and why. Thanks.
now after reading through this all again, i still get hung up on your excessive use of "can democracy survive with unlimited wealth" like that's the goal. it shouldn't be the goal. i ask "can we survive today's perverted version of (progressive) democracy's attempt to replace our republic, the one nation for which i pledge allegiance to. if it is going to survive, we need to start over with the way our govt was originally designed. RESTART it dont REFORM it.
-
First of all, welcome and thanks for your service!
Here's my main problem. This country was founded with the idea of individual freedom.
Your are NOT owed a living.
The simplest answer to your long, long post? If you don't like how you're treated by your evil employer, leave. This isn't a feudal system. Find a job that sucks less. You are NOT owed a living.
You are NOT owed a living.
You over-emphasize the tyranny of the capitalists, in my opinion. What about the tyranny of the workers? What do unions do in the end, for example, except reward mediocrity? Why can't the best worker get the most money? Why do all drywallers in the union, for example, get paid the same wage? Why can't a guy who can hang better and faster be paid more than someone who can't? Why should I, a consumer, be forced to pay inflated prices for mediocrity?
NOBODY OWES YOU A LIVING. You have to earn it.
Socialism fails. Every time, it fails.
-
First of all, welcome and thanks for your service!
Here's my main problem. This country was founded with the idea of individual freedom.
Your are NOT owed a living.
The simplest answer to your long, long post? If you don't like how you're treated by your evil employer, leave. This isn't a feudal system. Find a job that sucks less. You are NOT owed a living.
You are NOT owed a living.
You over-emphasize the tyranny of the capitalists, in my opinion. What about the tyranny of the workers? What do unions do in the end, for example, except reward mediocrity? Why can't the best worker get the most money? Why do all drywallers in the union, for example, get paid the same wage? Why can't a guy who can hang better and faster be paid more than someone who can't? Why should I, a consumer, be forced to pay inflated prices for mediocrity?
NOBODY OWES YOU A LIVING. You have to earn it.
Socialism fails. Every time, it fails.
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
-
I'd like to see him defend our Government run amock.
How about we treat the Federal Goverment they same way you wish to treat the "rich"? If not, why not?
Do you think it's OK for the Federal Government to "make" more money through taxation than oil companies? If so, why?
How much wealth should ANY public employee be allowed to amass? Use Ms. Pelosi as an example.
If "fair wages" reach 20+ dollars an hour, you woulden't mind paying 10+ bucks for a Happy Meal, right?
I agree with you on Ms. Pelosi. I don't suppose you think the Federal Government is practically owned by the corporations. I do. To me, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are every bit as problematic as John Boehner and Dick Cheney.
-
Oh yeah, I'm a flag waver. I got dead limbs in my family tree from American wars from before the revolution, in the revolution and in every major conflict since then (except the most recent mideast wars). A brother to my great-so-many grandfather (who served in The Continental Army) may have been one of the first Marines. Records show that he was a Marine serving aboard ship less than a year after their formation.
And S.C. is a fiesty little state. There were more revolutionary battles fraught in S.C. than any other colony. We love independence.
I was self employed for 40 years. The hired help took more advantage of me than I ever took of them....and that's the way it usually is.
I'm descended from a Quebecois who joined Washington's army in 1775--he was a trained artilleryman who hated redcoats--and a redcoat draftee who served with Cornwallis, surrendered at Yorktown, and settled in North Carolina after the war. I have 2 great x2 grandfathers who fought in the Confederate Army, one of whom was at Atlanta and retreated before Sherman through South Carolina.
That said, I'm still glad the North won the war. Call it 20-20 hindsight. But I still honor my ancestors who did what they thought was right. That sometimes gets me in trouble elsewhere. :wink:
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
Where in the Sermon on the Mount, or any other teachings, did Jesus say to give your money to the king for him to be able to care for the poor? My recollection is that he taught his followers to freely give of themselves directly to those in need. Inserting a middleman into your good works is not necessary, and doing good works because someone outside that "still small voice" tells you to doesn't count.
-
Greetings. I'm a card-carrying Socialist who mostly frequents Left Underground and Fire Dog Lake. I am neither a DUer nor an Elmer, for whatever that's worth. I'm also a Navy veteran of the Gulf War era(surface Navy--I don't get on ships that deliberately sink or jump out of perfectly good airplanes, hence the avatar), consider myself an American patriot, and have the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal to prove it to my satisfaction.
Freeper and Revolution had the gall and the courtesy, IMHO, to come over and express themselves on LU awhile back. Like Mr. Worf on Star Trek, I admire gall. With permission from welshTerrier2, I am going to post a reply he made to one of my OP's on LU recently. I would honestly like to know what y'all think about it. Here it is:
" 'Originally Posted by Ohio Barbarian
The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.
(Emphasis mine).'
There is no perspective of our current plight more important than this one.
When we speak of "defending jobs", we need to clarify what we mean. We have to go beyond the mere mechanics of protecting workers with things like putting an end to the exporting of jobs or raising minimum wage rates or protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace.
All of these things, while critically important, address only the symptoms of a far more deadly disease. The disease is the perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers.
We cannot let stand a system that values and empowers capital and profits over workers. Because if we do, as we have, we endorse a system that concentrates wealth without limits.
Excessively concentrated wealth, through its lobbyists and its campaign dollars, always perverts democracy. All our little lefty websites have really helped highlight that message. Occupy Wall Street, too, has helped highlight that message.
We're a hit. The American public has finally awakened to the reality that the extreme concentration of wealth has perverted any semblance of democracy. This awareness was a long time coming and it still has much further to go.
The question now will become what to do about the problem
Some will try to restrain the beast with regulation. We'll see the usually parade of campaign finance and lobby reform. It won't work. It never works. It can't work. Big money, brick by brick, will disassemble any walls you might build between democracy and money. If excessive wealth exists, it will always corrupt democratic institutions to serve itself. People need to understand this. The intent of regulation is well-meaning; it cannot ultimately succeed. The beast will always escape your confines.
So, what then is the true path to democracy and prosperity?
This is where, sadly, most of us, even those who think of themselves as "the Left", have not awakened at all. Somehow, we have been so deeply brainwashed and hypnotized by all the shiny gold and trinkets, that we've come to believe that the limitless acquisition of wealth is the ultimate entitlement program. "Everyone should be able to acquire as much wealth as they possibly can." We see that as the American way. We that as "freedom". We see that as a meritocracy that rightfully rewards the successful with vast riches.
People, you can't have it both ways. The acquisition of unlimited wealth, i.e. a political and economic system that severely concentrates wealth, has poisoned our democracy. You need to let go of the myth that the freedom to acquire and hold excessive wealth can exist side-by-side with democracy. It cannot.
The solutions you've sought that try to temper the abuses of concentrated wealth with regulation have failed. As wealth has grown more concentrated, democracy and prosperity for most of us has radically declined. The only solution to the problem is to cap wealth. We need to radically reduce the concentration of wealth. We need to understand that regulatory measures like higher marginal tax rates with steeper graduation are not going to get the job done. Such measures help with future income but do very little to close the wealth gap.
I realize it may jar your long-held beliefs but it's time to seize wealth and limit it to the point that it can no longer buy a greater share of government than the average citizen has access to. Democracy means equally shared power. Democracy cannot exist when we allow the gap between rich and poor to grow as large as it has.
To quote the OP once again:
'The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy'."
So, what do you think? Can democracy survive when unlimited wealth is allowed? I don't think it can, and I think history supports my position. In some important ways, limiting the power of wealth and privilege in order to maintain a stable society can be interpreted as a very conservative point of view. I am saying that unlimited capitalism is not a conservative position, but a radical one that celebrates unlimited selfishness, greed, and lust for power over others.
It is not my intention to start a flame war or to piss anyone off. I just want to see what you think of Welsh's position, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and why. Thanks.
I will help Thomas Jefferson answer your question:
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
I am hoping you return to address some of the points raised previous to this.
I must say though your notion of the reasons this country was founded are a pipe dream that denies all of history and writings,you do not get to rewrite that at your whim.
Secondly if you read the Bible and not just a handful of verses you would know that Jesus would be telling you to follow Him and accept Him as Lord and Saviour having paid the penalty of your sins by His willing sacrifice on the cross.
He would care nothing about your socialistic dreams.
-
Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good.
Then you should probably start over on your research. You seemed to have missed something.
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
There is no where in our history that even points to this idea that you think we were founded on "idea of the common good."
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Some socialist and DUmmies take two very important words out of this phrase, "pursuit of." You are not guaranteed happiness as you are not guaranteed a job you like. In fact a job is not a right, as you like to think.
Our founding fathers had foresight that I could never imagine. They wrote one of the most brilliant pieces of law ever. The constitution. It won't change. Live with it. IF you don't like it go to the EU.
-
Welcome to Conservative Cave! I echo what TVDOC posted upthread. We do not hide our conservative slant on CC. As long as you follow the board rules and engage in honest discourse, you will be fine.
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
Please show me in the founding documents where "common good" trumps indidividual freedom.
Also, Jesus of Nazareth, as far as I have read, never really spoke of temporal kingdoms and governments. In fact, when offered, he refused to run earthly kingdoms. I'm thinking you've reduced the Son of God to a bit of a strawman here.
If you can post where Jesus said governments rather than individuals should run charities, I'd appreciate it. I'm thinking that "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is much more in line with Ciaphas--almost verbatim--than Jesus.
-
Founded on the idea of common good?
I think not.
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
Welcome to CC.
I imagine you've asked yourself the question, "Why is everyone here starting a different place than I am? Why do they think this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom rather than the idea of the common good?"
You've seen the answers, but let me offer another.
Federalist #9 and #10, penned by Hamilton and Madison respectively, prize individual liberty to the extent that representative democracy is favored over direct democracy. It would appear that individual rights trump mob rule. You simply can't trust the masses to do the right thing. Groupthink was a phenomenon seen then, as it is now.
I don't see a lot in there about the so-called "common good." Individual liberty was the basis on which the Constitution was written. Everything else pales in comparison.
-
Hey, I really like the Socialist form of "For the Common Good"...shoot, imprison, forced labor camps for the lazy, worthless, resource absorbing blood sucking leeches. :-)
-
Thanks for the welcome. I see everyone here is starting at a completely different place than I am. Fundamentally, I don't believe this country was founded on the idea of individual freedom, but on the idea of the common good. And yes, I believe that everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. I also think, no, that's wrong, I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth would agree more with me and WelshTerrier, whose response to me I posted, than with you all.
No matter. There's some food for thought here. My thanks to everyone for their input.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence would disagree with you. So would the philosophies and writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al.
Nobody has a RIGHT to anyone else's labors, which is all socialism boils down to. Rights are God-given. OPPORTUNITY is the thing that should be equal. You cannot guarantee equal results. And decent? I'm guessing you've spent some time on the pond, so you know (or SHOULD know) what REAL misery is. The poor here are inconvenienced, not truly impoverished.
The only thing socialism ensures is equal misery.
-
Please show me in the founding documents where "common good" trumps indidividual freedom.
Also, Jesus of Nazareth, as far as I have read, never really spoke of temporal kingdoms and governments. In fact, when offered, he refused to run earthly kingdoms. I'm thinking you've reduced the Son of God to a bit of a strawman here.
If you can post where Jesus said governments rather than individuals should run charities, I'd appreciate it. I'm thinking that "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is much more in line with Ciaphas--almost verbatim--than Jesus.
I betcha a Hi5 he never answers you.
It feels like he was here more to post a rant than to discuss. In spite of his snarky first response to Reb, people here have been rather nice to him.
Mr Barbarian, if you want a discussion, people are more than willing to discuss. But it goes both ways. If someone asks you a polite question, then an answer is expected.
and a bit of advice. That opening statement was a wall of text. I'm not reading a book from a first time poster.
make a concise point and stick to it. open new threads for different topics. This nit pick was brought to you in the name of love. peace out mannn.
-
So the captains of industry with their glad-handing, back-slapping deals done in smoke-filled rooms for their benefit without regard to the common man will now become the apparatchiks with their glad-handing, back-slapping deals done in smoke-filled rooms for their benefit without regard to the common man but it will be different this time because some people wrote some words that will make people suddenly act nice and moral unlike the millions of other appeals to do the same over the last ten thousand years of history.
Where do I sign-up...
...to shoot people naive enough to buy into this shit?
Tell me: how will the worker's lot be improved when there is monopolized industry management? There will be no wage-competition between employers because there will be only one employer: the state. Workers cannot seek a different job or attempt to work for themselves. Consumers cannot boycott disfavored firms and send their business elsewhere. Inefficiencies are not corrected, only funded with more vigor. The people cannot even vote out a bad government administration because socialism even monoplizes politics.
So in the end the worker is left in unsafe, low-wage conditions, making shit nobody wants, for prices that make no sense to anybody and nobody can do a damn thing about it through the democracy of the dollar or the ballot.
-
You just want to exchange one master for an even worse one.
Succinct, to the point, and correct...except that there is an awful lot of overlap between the two sets of masters.
-
Tell me: how will the worker's lot be improved when there is monopolized industry management? There will be no wage-competition between employers because there will be only one employer: the state. Workers cannot seek a different job or attempt to work for themselves. Consumers cannot boycott disfavored firms and send their business elsewhere. Inefficiencies are not corrected, only funded with more vigor. The people cannot even vote out a bad government administration because socialism even monoplizes politics.
So in the end the worker is left in unsafe, low-wage conditions, making shit nobody wants, for prices that make no sense to anybody and nobody can do a damn thing about it through the democracy of the dollar or the ballot.
now that was good interpretation
^5
-
Please show me in the founding documents where "common good" trumps indidividual freedom.
Certainly not in the sense of allowing the State taking away individual freedom to provide for it, or pick the pocket of some for the benefit of others; direct provision was made for "The common defense," but that is a whole different kettle of fish.
-
I agree with you on Ms. Pelosi. I don't suppose you think the Federal Government is practically owned by the corporations. I do. To me, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are every bit as problematic as John Boehner and Dick Cheney.
Seriously? :rotf:
-
It would appear that the OP did not want to deal with the opinions he asked for.
-
It would appear that the OP did not want to deal with the opinions he asked for.
A swoop and poop !
Luckily it was small and relatively odour free.
-
It would appear that the OP did not want to deal with the opinions he asked for.
No, I'm grateful for the responses. Even if I don't agree with them. Y'all are still my countrymen. Whether I like it or not. And whether you like me or not.
-
Well, You came back.
Please feel free to answer a few questions some of our members here asked you.
-
Hmmm. Gone again.
I guess it's true. The words "rude" and "socialist" go together.
-
Hmmm. Gone again.
I guess it's true. The words "rude" and "socialist" go together.
I was thinking more of "clueless" and "socialist".
-
Well, You came back.
Please feel free to answer a few questions some of our members here asked you.
Are you sure? Do you really want me to engage with you? Be very careful of what you ask for. You just might get it, and I doubt the mods here, who seem honorable, would ban me for it. I'm really pretty good when I try. Do you want me to, here?
I've held back because this is Conservative Cave, because I respect this site, and because I am not some flamebaiter trolling for attention. I'm the same person under the same name at Fire Dog Lake and Left Underground. I'm not your typical latte' liberal Democratic Party hack. Hell, I don't even vote for Democrats! Much.
But I am no Internet coward, I am just as patriotic as you(if not more so, we probably have different definitions), and I love a challenge. If you really want me to debate you, I will. Just please don't whine. I got enough of that on DU.
-
(Going Vesta long post mode, be forewarned)
"Ohio barbarian"~ LOL! I can picture you sitting in your parent's basement, community college hero for humanity that you think you are. How are your grades? (wishing you the best, BTW) -or- you are a brainwashed union dues paying drone who has no clue where all that dues money is going, you just lap up the propaganda and believe every syllable.
You are apparently of the assumption that for people to enjoy the fruits of their own labors is wrong. You feel that "wealth" is evil. Money should be something which is defined as finite, only so much of it to go around and that which goes around should be dictated by an overseeing body. An overseeing body which exists in a state of grace beyond reproach, no doubt for they are immaculate in their intentions.
You are a fool.
That's not how reality works. Socialism is evil, not freedom. Socialism, communism, rub-your-nutbagism, what ever they are calling it this week is evil. Freedom is breath and life, that is capitalism. Socialism/communism is regulation, confiscation, suffocation, drowning, strangulation, death.
Everywhere that free markets exist humanity prospers. Everywhere that overregulation exists suffering prospers while an exclusive elite reap a massively disproportionate harvest from their serf class which they micromanage with an oppressive and totalitarian posture over trade.
You are an idiot.
Like the serfs of old Europe who toiled and half starved as they worried over providing enough harvest to the Duke in the Manor House and doffed their hats if they happened to cross his path in the village while they schlepped along on foot as he passed on a great steed you see not the shit end of the stick you are being handed but you keep voting for it.
You are a retard.
You dope smoking hippies are all the same. You union "us-first-and-fvck-everybody-else" types are all the same. You 19 year old idealistic "Marx was awesome" types are all the same. None of you get it.
"It" defined~
Good and evil. It is that simple.
What would a man do if he had charge of his own affairs? His will. He works, he gets paid, he invests his proceeds into the future of his children, his own legacy, he is free.
What would a man do if he had to face another man's will put upon him? Fight.
("oh it's not always that", bullshit, those afflicted are reduced to resisting in ways which allow them to survive, yet the core of their existence is defined by resistance to the regime, not to the furtherance of themselves in the education of their children, their beliefs/regional culture or free trade commerce for their own gain).
That's what we have seen in every socialist/communist/rub-your-nut-bag state that ever existed.
China is going more and more capitalist every day, more and more. They cannot contain their people any longer. Wages are rising there. More and more American companies that went there are coming back to the U.S.
China is burgeoning for freedom and the regime will not be able to contain the masses much longer. No, there will not be a Chinese civil war but there will be a continuation of the trend towards capitalism that ensued with the British evacuation of Hong Kong.
Freedom has a way of spreading. Evil has a way of leaving people with longing for freedom.
Socialism/Communism/Rub-your-nutbagism or whatever they are calling it this week has a way of installing the noble class over the serfs -WITH NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER- with the promise that everyone will be "comfortable".
It is a lie.
-
Are you sure? Do you really want me to engage with you? Be very careful of what you ask for. You just might get it, and I doubt the mods here, who seem honorable, would ban me for it. I'm really pretty good when I try. Do you want me to, here?
I've held back because this is Conservative Cave, because I respect this site, and because I am not some flamebaiter trolling for attention. I'm the same person under the same name at Fire Dog Lake and Left Underground. I'm not your typical latte' liberal Democratic Party hack. Hell, I don't even vote for Democrats! Much.
But I am no Internet coward, I am just as patriotic as you(if not more so, we probably have different definitions), and I love a challenge. If you really want me to debate you, I will. Just please don't whine. I got enough of that on DU.
The first thing you need to do is show us any evidence in the founding documents or the writings of any of the founding fathers where they were establishing an independent union on the basis of the "common good".
Not in a generalized way where one takes the term "the pursuit of happiness" and claims that means they wanted government to provide all for citizenry via confiscation of personal or private property.
-
Are you sure? Do you really want me to engage with you? Be very careful of what you ask for. You just might get it, and I doubt the mods here, who seem honorable, would ban me for it. I'm really pretty good when I try. Do you want me to, here?
I've held back because this is Conservative Cave, because I respect this site, and because I am not some flamebaiter trolling for attention. I'm the same person under the same name at Fire Dog Lake and Left Underground. I'm not your typical latte' liberal Democratic Party hack. Hell, I don't even vote for Democrats! Much.
But I am no Internet coward, I am just as patriotic as you(if not more so, we probably have different definitions), and I love a challenge. If you really want me to debate you, I will. Just please don't whine. I got enough of that on DU.
:yack: We're impressed and afraid. Really. Truly...
:rotf:
-
:popcorn:
Bring it on, OB! :-)
-
The first thing you need to do is show us any evidence in the founding documents or the writings of any of the founding fathers where they were establishing an independent union on the basis of the "common good".
Not in a generalized way where one takes the term "the pursuit of happiness" and claims that means they wanted government to provide all for citizenry via confiscation of personal or private property.
Carl, the problem with most leftists is they take out of context that little phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution, "promote the general welfare", not realizing (or more likely, not caring) that it has nothing to do with welfare in a modern sense.
-
Are you sure? Do you really want me to engage with you? Be very careful of what you ask for. You just might get it,
YES! We love our liberal pansy chew toys. No one here is afraid of a liberal opinion or debate.
Most libs chicken out. Are you chicken? Cause you've been looking that way.
and I doubt the mods here, who seem honorable, would ban me for it.
No one will ban you for being liberal. All you've been doing is showing up, saying something snarky and disapearing. --here's a hint. If you want a polite conversation, start out by being polite.
I'm really pretty good when I try. Do you want me to, here?
I'm so scared...NOT. Yes answer a few questions: PARTICIPATE. Some people here asked you polite questions. answer them politely. Its not that hard.
I've held back because this is Conservative Cave, because I respect this site,
Hmmm. Libs respecting conservative opinions. Yeah sure. But OK, show us you respect this site by answering the questions with respect.
and because I am not some flamebaiter trolling for attention.
That remains to be seen, but lets give this a try. This little post of yours comes across as condenscending and rude, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and let you prove you can act in a civilized manner.
My responses are in Republican red. Feel free to answer a few questions in a civil manner.
just scroll thru this thread and answer the questions. Its not that hard.
One last bit of advice: a wall of text is not an answer. be concise. stick to the point.
-
No, I'm grateful for the responses. Even if I don't agree with them. Y'all are still my countrymen. Whether I like it or not. And whether you like me or not.
You are not part of my "countrymen" and no, I don't give a **** if you served. This is a conservative board. MANY of us served. Your support of an ideology that would destroy everything this nation was based upon has led me to this opinion.
-
For anyone that wants to bitch at me for saying something about him serving, hey, so did Lee Harvey Oswald and Benedict Arnold.
-
I'll stand by you on that one, Reb. (for what it's worth)
I see no rule on Conservative Cave stating against two people who served that are of different idealogies having a skirmish.
-
For anyone that wants to bitch at me for saying something about him serving, hey, so did Lee Harvey Oswald and Benedict Arnold.
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. A DD-214 is not carte blanche to start acting like a douchebag.
-
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. A DD-214 is not carte blanche to start acting like a douchebag.
Yeah, and it's a testament to our way of life, our freedoms, and the First Amendment that the very freedom that he enjoys in being a douchebag would disappear like a fart in the hurricane with the very system that he espouses.
Kinda wonder just how in the hell that happens -- somebody puts the uniform on, serves honorably, sees what there is to see and why we do what we do, and yet embraces an ideology that would destroy all that he worked for. Amazing in its idiocy. :mental:
-
Yeah, and it's a testament to our way of life, our freedoms, and the First Amendment that the very freedom that he enjoys in being a douchebag would disappear like a fart in the hurricane with the very system that he espouses.
Kinda wonder just how in the hell that happens -- somebody puts the uniform on, serves honorably, sees what there is to see and why we do what we do, and yet embraces an ideology that would destroy all that he worked for. Amazing in its idiocy. :mental:
Because most of the OWS/socialist/hate America vets are usually the one-term (or less) and out guys who were constantly getting dickstomped by their Chief or First Sergeant.
Not all, mind you, but too many to be a mere coincidence.
-
Because most of the OWS/socialist/hate America vets are usually the one-term (or less) and out guys who were constantly getting dickstomped by their Chief or First Sergeant.
Not all, mind you, but too many to be a mere coincidence.
If that's true - and I have no doubt that it is true in some cases - then those who have adopted the socialist/Owie/hate America agenda have truly failed to see beyond the end of their nose.
Imbeciles, the lot of 'em.
But of course we knew that.
-
I am not going to mock anyone's service, there are plenty of stresses, challenges, and risk to go around in any branch, peace or war. However, just because someone served, it doesn't mean I won't mock Hell out of them for being a douchenozzle now.
-
For anyone that wants to bitch at me for saying something about him serving, hey, so did Lee Harvey Oswald and Benedict Arnold.
Or for the more contemporary version: Algore, John F. Kerry, and yes even LBJ (aka The Great Johnson). Ever read the story of his 'outstanding valor'?
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-7.htm
Decorated he was. :lmao:
-
Or for the more contemporary version: Algore, John F. Kerry, and yes even LBJ (aka The Great Johnson). Ever read the story of his 'outstanding valor'?
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-7.htm
Decorated he was. :lmao:
The unofficial version of it was that he thought it'd be a chance to pick up a free medal, but they actually saw an enemy plane in the distance when the plane was en route to the objective, and he cried like a bitch and demanded the plane turn around, and his political buddies still took care of him afterward with the medal.
Even the official citation does not relate anything remotely worthy of a valor decoration.
-
OB is indicating that he can bury us all if we only let him speak...and then he doesn't speak.
I'm seeing a pattern here. He doesn't debate, answer questions just posts long winded rants...
Talk is cheap. and I don't believe he ever served this country. He was never in the military, he's just saying that because he's LYING.
He says he'll answer questions but he won't.
He says we better watch out or his responses will invoke the liberal myth of leaving all conservatives speechless.
He says he respects this site,,,but won't even participare.
Ohio Barbarian is a coward who can't back up his words.
Mr Mannn ~~~ just called OB out.
-
OB is indicating that he can bury us all if we only let him speak...and then he doesn't speak.
I'm seeing a pattern here. He doesn't debate, answer questions just posts long winded rants...
Talk is cheap. and I don't believe he ever served this country. He was never in the military, he's just saying that because he's LYING.
He says he'll answer questions but he won't.
He says we better watch out or his responses will invoke the liberal myth of leaving all conservatives speechless.
He says he respects this site,,,but won't even participare.
Ohio Barbarian is a coward who can't back up his words.
Mr Mannn ~~~ just called OB out.
He's probably "out" playing in the street.
-
He's probably "out" playing in the street.
I think he's been taken on one too many visits to see the Golden Rivet.
-
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. A DD-214 is not carte blanche to start acting like a douchebag.
Some of the WORST human beings, and I use that term loosely, were in the military, sad to say. :fuelfire:
-
Greetings. I'm a card-carrying Socialist who mostly frequents Left Underground and Fire Dog Lake. I am neither a DUer nor an Elmer, for whatever that's worth. I'm also a Navy veteran of the Gulf War era(surface Navy--I don't get on ships that deliberately sink or jump out of perfectly good airplanes, hence the avatar), consider myself an American patriot, and have the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal to prove it to my satisfaction.
I really didn't need to read any further than this. Anyone who would see the very document they swore an oath to protect shredded pretty much negates any "era" service to which you lay claim. Anyone who claims what you claim wore the uniform for nothing more than a paycheck and college money; nothing more high minded than "gimme" for your motivation to serve.
The way you rail and whine about everything screams junior enlisted, been-in-the-Navy-since-breakfast-guy that swore he was smarter than every senior PO and CPO and knew how to do everything better. A whiner, in other words, and you dishonor not only the Naval Service but the past and present Sailors of the USS O'Kane by sporting that avatar.
Before it crosses you mind to get indignant and self righteous, yes, I was in, too. 22 years, Surface Navy, Gator and Shooter Fleet with a dose of LCAC thrown in for good measure.
I know many have invited you stick around, hang out, "learn", etc. Personally, I think you need to slither your ass back to whatever hole you crawled out from under and stay there.
-
You mean he's (((GASP!!!))) a veteran imposter? :cheersmate:
-
You mean he's (((GASP!!!))) a veteran imposter? :cheersmate:
No, I'm saying that from the tone of his post, he sounds like your typical whiner no-load that every single division has stinking up their shop.
-
" 'Originally Posted by Ohio Barbarian
The defense of democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to defend jobs and living standards and is impossible today without a direct assault on the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy.
(Emphasis mine).'
There is no perspective of our current plight more important than this one.
When we speak of "defending jobs", we need to clarify what we mean. We have to go beyond the mere mechanics of protecting workers with things like putting an end to the exporting of jobs or raising minimum wage rates or protecting workers from discrimination in the workplace.
All of these things, while critically important, address only the symptoms of a far more deadly disease. The disease is the perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers.
We cannot let stand a system that values and empowers capital and profits over workers. Because if we do, as we have, we endorse a system that concentrates wealth without limits.
Excessively concentrated wealth, through its lobbyists and its campaign dollars, always perverts democracy. All our little lefty websites have really helped highlight that message. Occupy Wall Street, too, has helped highlight that message.
We're a hit. The American public has finally awakened to the reality that the extreme concentration of wealth has perverted any semblance of democracy. This awareness was a long time coming and it still has much further to go.
The question now will become what to do about the problem
I will give some opinions, but first let's start off with facts. Before the question about what to do can be answered, you need to first understand what you and the Majority are NOT ALLOWED to do, and better define the ACTUAL problem.
First of all, defending a "Democracy" is a foolish thing to do. This Country was founded on the idea that each individual has Rights which the Government is instituted to Protect, and if the Government FAILS to do this, then it loses its jurisdiction over the people, i.e. can be altered or abolished. In a Democracy the Majority rules, so if the Majority votes to enslave a Minority, then too bad for the Minority. The Founders properly recognized that Democracies are EVIL, and diligently took steps to make sure that our Government was NOT a Democracy.
In this Constitutional Republic, there is a set of Rules known as the Constitution which every Representative takes an oath to uphold before they can sit in the People's seat of power. The Constitution is a list of things that the Government is NOT ALLOWED to do, so that the basic Rights of each individual is Protected, such as the 13th Amendment which Prohibits Involuntary Servitude -> Socialism.
By recognizing the FACT that each individual has Rights which the Government MUST protect in order for the Government to be Legitimate, we can then figure out what the Government must and must not do in order to determine what can be done to solve any supposed problems.
Because we have all lived in a Socialist America, many people have no grasp of what it ACTUALLY means to have an unalienable Right. Each person has THEIR OWN Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I think a good way to grasp what it means to have a Right is to use something that people already understand, the Right to Remain Silent. YOUR Right to Remain Silent is YOURS to dispose of as YOU see fit. The Majority can't vote as to whether you are silent or not. The Government cannot force you to not be silent, because it is the Government's DUTY to Protect your Right to Remain Silent.
The same applies to YOUR Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. These are each Individual's Rights to dispose of as each person sees fit. The Majority can't vote to make one person Serve/Help another. The Government cannot FORCE the Individual to Serve/Help others because it is the Government's DUTY to keep the Individual's Liberty from being violated. The 13th Amendment properly Protects the Individual's Right to Liberty by prohibiting Involuntary Servitude. The 13th Amendment makes ALL Socialism (Government Handouts) unconstitutional, but due to the ignorance of the US Citizens, the Government is being allowed to violate the 13th Amendment by committing the crime of Socialism on a daily basis, as Taxes are collected for unconstitutional Government Handout Programs. The Individual can dispose of THEIR OWN Right to Liberty by voluntarily helping the Poor, or by violating somebody else's Rights by robbing them causing the Government to arrest them in order for the Government to fulfill on its duty to Protect each Individual's Rights. But the Government has NO AUTHORITY to decide how much one person must help other via Taxes and Government Handouts, and MUST stop a Majority form ever imposing Socialism upon any Individual. In a Socially Just society where the Individual's Rights are being Protected, ALL help for the Poor is done by people VOLUNTARILY, and is NEVER done by the Government.
The problem of Government corruption caused by rich people buying influence is solved if the Government would simply do its job, which is to Protect the Individual's Rights from being violated by others. The Government's job is to Protect, NOT Provide, as this automatically turns the Taxpayers into Slaves. The problem of Government NOT doing its job is solved by the average person being informed as to what the Government's job actually is.
Defending jobs is a foolish pursuit. What if people don't want jobs, as is often the case when the Government commits the crime of Socialism which allows one person to mooch off of another. Defend the Individual's Rights, and people can then go get jobs if they so desire, which I expect many will.
Minimum Wage? Since each person has the Right to Liberty which the Government is supposed to Protect, then 2 consenting adults have the RIGHT to decide upon any wage which they can both agree upon. The Government has NO AUTHORITY place limits on how much or little a job is worth between 2 people.
Discrimination? Freedom of association is part of the RIGHT to Pursue Happiness. The Jewish store owner should never have to hire the NAZI, and the Christian should never be forced to have a homosexual work for them.
A "perverse imbalance of power between workers and their bosses and their employers."? The Right to Pursue Happiness ends at the Property Line. The "worker" owns their own Body and can accept, deny or counter offer the Business Owners offer for a give job at a given rate. If an agreement cannot be reached they can part ways.
The OWS was a hit? Everybody I know saw them for the Spoiled Brats that they are, coveting that which belongs to somebody else and expecting things to be given to them as if they were still babies.