Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Imagine That
I know some of the radical leftists reading this blog just can't get enough of Communism. And really, I can't see why not. It's just terrific, you know. Everybody gets along, and they are so darn peaceful. Well, the people that agree with their government on everything anyways. The Chinese government prefers to keep the peace by executing people who disagree with them.
Communists hate freedom, and more specifically hate freedom of religion. There's nothing they despise more than someone who puts faith in anything other than the state. They see it as a threat that must be put to an end. Just recently, the Chinese executed 15 members of a secret church.
Is it not an outrage that there are people on this planet who are being killed for doing the things that too many Americans take for granted nowadays? Something as small as being religious, or disagreeing with the government will get you killed! Dead! Hung by your frickin neck!
I'm not saying it's our place to do anything, because I don't believe that. I believe that what other countries do is their problem, unless it directly effects us. If the Chinese decide to have a revolution, I am all for it. But if they don't, it's not our place to do anything. We don't have the resources to stick our nose in much more. We've got Iraq and Afghanistan under our responsibility, and we've got Iran and North Korea posing dangerous threats to us.
What is of my concern however, is the radical leftists in this very country who believe Communism works. They have been brainwashed into believing a radical and deadly ideology, and with this idea on the rise in this country, imagine what could happen if these people got elected into office? You think the Republicans are threatening your liberties? You haven't seen anything yet.
Republicans think you're in danger of terrorists, and yes I think their policies are a little much, but Liberals think you're in danger of yourselves. They think you are a moron who if left to make a decision, will make a bad one. They are not the party of choice as people say. The only choice they give you is the one to kill your baby, or marry your horse. That's about it. They don't trust the people to run a successful economy. They don't trust you to have personal responsibility. Other than abortion and gay marraige, every personal decision is up to them and you know it. Liberals can't stand the freedom to smoke or gamble, and that's not nearly as bad a decision as gettting an abortion! And I'm Pro-Choice! Again, they think you are a moron.
You know who the real morons are though? The Liberals. I'm sorry, I know I have retained from bashing people for a long time, and there's plenty bad to say about Conservatives too, but this is just necessary. I am not going to say "why can't we be friends" when you are out there sympathizing with an ideology that is so radical, people who disagree are killed! Wake up, this is not a dream for peace. It is a nightmare. In fact, I would rather spend my life in the ninth circle of hell than live in a Communist society.
So how do I convince people that they are exploring such a dangerous idea, so our future leaders of America don't start inching our country toward Communism? I've got to show them the failure that is other Communist countries. I'm sure Karl Marx imagined Communism to be a joyous system with singing trees and rainbow skies, but every time his ideas are implemented, because they are so unrealistic, they are complete failures, and millions of people die because of it. Furthermore, if Communism were to be implemented here, the results would be the same. Complete and utter failure.
I think it's time Liberals gave their Communist ideas a rest. I know for a fact that they couldn't last five minutes in a Communist country. Try having a gay parade in Cuba. Try having a protest in China. I'm sure it'll work out great. The truth is, I don't think Communism is really what Liberals want. The ideas and the economics maybe, but not the death and destruction that goes along with it. They just don't know what they're getting themselves into. Communism is not the answer to concerns over poverty, trust me! All Communism does is make people equally poor, and you all must understand that. Don't confuse regulating the free market with such an evil ideology.
But truthfully, regulating the free market doesn't fix poverty either. Free market Capitalism does a better job making the people happy than anything else. For one thing, people are motivated by greed instead of fear, which in my opinion works a lot better. Because of competition, products are of higher quality and of lower price. There of course is always a winning and loosing company, but that doesn't matter because when loosing companies are firing, winning companies are hiring. The only people who can't get jobs are lazy bums. And what's that other thing we get with Capitalism? Oh yeah, freedom.
But maybe you don't care about freedom. Maybe you don't care about liberty. If that's true, then maybe you need to buy a one way ticket out of my country so I don't have to see it collapse any time soon.
Communists hate freedom, and more specifically hate freedom of religion. There's nothing they despise more than someone who puts faith in anything other than the state. They see it as a threat that must be put to an end. Just recently, the Chinese executed 15 members of a secret church.
Is it not an outrage that there are people on this planet who are being killed for doing the things that too many Americans take for granted nowadays? Something as small as being religious, or disagreeing with the government will get you killed! Dead! Hung by your frickin neck!
I'm not saying it's our place to do anything, because I don't believe that. I believe that what other countries do is their problem, unless it directly effects us. If the Chinese decide to have a revolution, I am all for it. But if they don't, it's not our place to do anything. We don't have the resources to stick our nose in much more. We've got Iraq and Afghanistan under our responsibility, and we've got Iran and North Korea posing dangerous threats to us.
What is of my concern however, is the radical leftists in this very country who believe Communism works. They have been brainwashed into believing a radical and deadly ideology, and with this idea on the rise in this country, imagine what could happen if these people got elected into office? You think the Republicans are threatening your liberties? You haven't seen anything yet.
Republicans think you're in danger of terrorists, and yes I think their policies are a little much, but Liberals think you're in danger of yourselves. They think you are a moron who if left to make a decision, will make a bad one. They are not the party of choice as people say. The only choice they give you is the one to kill your baby, or marry your horse. That's about it. They don't trust the people to run a successful economy. They don't trust you to have personal responsibility. Other than abortion and gay marraige, every personal decision is up to them and you know it. Liberals can't stand the freedom to smoke or gamble, and that's not nearly as bad a decision as gettting an abortion! And I'm Pro-Choice! Again, they think you are a moron.
You know who the real morons are though? The Liberals. I'm sorry, I know I have retained from bashing people for a long time, and there's plenty bad to say about Conservatives too, but this is just necessary. I am not going to say "why can't we be friends" when you are out there sympathizing with an ideology that is so radical, people who disagree are killed! Wake up, this is not a dream for peace. It is a nightmare. In fact, I would rather spend my life in the ninth circle of hell than live in a Communist society.
So how do I convince people that they are exploring such a dangerous idea, so our future leaders of America don't start inching our country toward Communism? I've got to show them the failure that is other Communist countries. I'm sure Karl Marx imagined Communism to be a joyous system with singing trees and rainbow skies, but every time his ideas are implemented, because they are so unrealistic, they are complete failures, and millions of people die because of it. Furthermore, if Communism were to be implemented here, the results would be the same. Complete and utter failure.
I think it's time Liberals gave their Communist ideas a rest. I know for a fact that they couldn't last five minutes in a Communist country. Try having a gay parade in Cuba. Try having a protest in China. I'm sure it'll work out great. The truth is, I don't think Communism is really what Liberals want. The ideas and the economics maybe, but not the death and destruction that goes along with it. They just don't know what they're getting themselves into. Communism is not the answer to concerns over poverty, trust me! All Communism does is make people equally poor, and you all must understand that. Don't confuse regulating the free market with such an evil ideology.
But truthfully, regulating the free market doesn't fix poverty either. Free market Capitalism does a better job making the people happy than anything else. For one thing, people are motivated by greed instead of fear, which in my opinion works a lot better. Because of competition, products are of higher quality and of lower price. There of course is always a winning and loosing company, but that doesn't matter because when loosing companies are firing, winning companies are hiring. The only people who can't get jobs are lazy bums. And what's that other thing we get with Capitalism? Oh yeah, freedom.
But maybe you don't care about freedom. Maybe you don't care about liberty. If that's true, then maybe you need to buy a one way ticket out of my country so I don't have to see it collapse any time soon.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 11/29/2006 12:57:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The story is nothing new. The USSR would routinally improsion Jews, simply because they were Jewish. While the left might like communism I don't think there are many who have experienced it firsthand who do.
# posted by 
: 11/29/2006 5:06 PM
: 11/29/2006 5:06 PM
"While the left might like communism I don't think there are many who have experienced it firsthand who do."
That's what I'm getting at. The Leftists just don't know what they're getting into.
That's what I'm getting at. The Leftists just don't know what they're getting into.
Who in the U.S. has ever said that communism works and has honestly tried to execute it? I have no idea why you think that is actually a reality, because it isn't. I would like you to give examples of these radical changes liberals are making to move the country toward communism, because I know of none and you certainly haven't stated any. The statement that "the only choice they give you is the one to kill your baby, or marry your horse" is COMPLETELY ignorant, for more reason that one. You cannot marry a horse. Do not compare homosexuality to people marrying animals. That makes you look stupid and bigoted. If you want people to think that of you, keep it up.
How many people who are pro-choice have you talked to? And I mean normal people with common opinions, not talking points? I am a young adult who has to make choices everyday, and I cannot say that I would get an abortion after making a concious decision to run the risk of conceiving a child. If I was raped? And then become pregnant? Who I not be made an even bigger victim if I was forced, under law, to carry out the pregnancy? That was not my choice. Even if I were to choose to give the baby up for adoption, that is 9 months of my life that I spend being pregnant, a body that is no longer the one I knew, and a scar that will last forever. Should abortion be a convenience? Absolutely not. Should it be encouraged? No, and I don't think it is. It is an unpleasant thing but there are more sides to the story than you acknowledge.
How many people who are pro-choice have you talked to? And I mean normal people with common opinions, not talking points? I am a young adult who has to make choices everyday, and I cannot say that I would get an abortion after making a concious decision to run the risk of conceiving a child. If I was raped? And then become pregnant? Who I not be made an even bigger victim if I was forced, under law, to carry out the pregnancy? That was not my choice. Even if I were to choose to give the baby up for adoption, that is 9 months of my life that I spend being pregnant, a body that is no longer the one I knew, and a scar that will last forever. Should abortion be a convenience? Absolutely not. Should it be encouraged? No, and I don't think it is. It is an unpleasant thing but there are more sides to the story than you acknowledge.
I know some of the radical leftists reading this blog just can't get enough of Communism.
I think the title of your post is apt. This sounds like something from your imagination.
Communists hate freedom, and more specifically hate freedom of religion.
I'm not saying it's our place to do anything, because I don't believe that. I believe that what other countries do is their problem, unless it directly effects us. If the Chinese decide to have a revolution, I am all for it. But if they don't, it's not our place to do anything.
What is of my concern however, is the radical leftists in this very country who believe Communism works.
I agree with Allisoni Balloni -- please let us know exactly WHO you are referring to.
They have been brainwashed into believing a radical and deadly ideology, and with this idea on the rise in this country, imagine what could happen if these people got elected into office? You think the Republicans are threatening your liberties? You haven't seen anything yet.
What haven't I seen yet? Are you predicting the rise of the Communist party in the United States? That's ridiculous! I'll stick to being worried about actual threats to the liberties of US citizens (which ARE coming from the radical right), instead of imaginary ones.
Other than abortion and gay marraige, every personal decision is up to them and you know it.
I "know" no such thing. I am against gambling and support a public smoking ban, but my decisions were based on how each of these issues impacts OTHERS, not the individual making the poor decision. In very many cases friends, family members and co-workers suffer consequences, and taxpayers have to pick up some of the cost. Your claim that the consequences of smoking or gambling are "not nearly as bad a decision as gettting an abortion" I strongly disagree.
You know who the real morons are though? The Liberals. I'm sorry, I know I have retained from bashing people for a long time, and there's plenty bad to say about Conservatives too, but this is just necessary.
This isn't true or necessary.
...if Communism were to be implemented here, the results would be the same. Complete and utter failure.
WHY are you spending your time worrying about something that has a ZERO chance of happening??! Me, I'm more worried about the growing divide between the rich and the poor -- and the fact that those in the upper class pay for our elections. Those who pay for our elections expect a return on their investment. This has never been more clear than with the bush administration. This is what scares me. Not an imaginary Communist takeover. If Democracy falls in the US I believe we're MUCH more likely to become a fascist state than a Communist one.
The truth is, I don't think Communism is really what Liberals want. The ideas and the economics maybe, but not the death and destruction that goes along with it. They just don't know what they're getting themselves into.
That's bull. Liberals don't idealize Communism. Some Liberals lean more towards Socialism -- but Socialism isn't Communism. I think you're either confused or ignorant on this point.
But truthfully, regulating the free market doesn't fix poverty either. Free market Capitalism does a better job making the people happy than anything else.
I do not support "free market" policies. I support FAIR trade, not FREE trade. Free trade benefits only the wealthy. Those "winning" companies you refer to? They are located in China and Mexico. Are you saying that if a person loses his job in the US he should move to China because they are hiring there?!
The only people who can't get jobs are lazy bums.
So you're saying that if all the "lazy bums" were subtracted from the unemployment numbers those figures would show 100 percent employment? Another completely false and ignorant statement. It's easy to say that people are unemployed because they're "lazy" rather than do something to address the problem.
But maybe you don't care about freedom. Maybe you don't care about liberty.
Maybe you don't care about these things. After all you don't support the concept of three equal branchs of goverment which is so central to the success of our Democracy. Based on your past statements I'd say you support bush's "unitary executive" theory. Again, this is closer to Fascism than to Communism.
I think the title of your post is apt. This sounds like something from your imagination.
Communists hate freedom, and more specifically hate freedom of religion.
I'm not saying it's our place to do anything, because I don't believe that. I believe that what other countries do is their problem, unless it directly effects us. If the Chinese decide to have a revolution, I am all for it. But if they don't, it's not our place to do anything.
What is of my concern however, is the radical leftists in this very country who believe Communism works.
I agree with Allisoni Balloni -- please let us know exactly WHO you are referring to.
They have been brainwashed into believing a radical and deadly ideology, and with this idea on the rise in this country, imagine what could happen if these people got elected into office? You think the Republicans are threatening your liberties? You haven't seen anything yet.
What haven't I seen yet? Are you predicting the rise of the Communist party in the United States? That's ridiculous! I'll stick to being worried about actual threats to the liberties of US citizens (which ARE coming from the radical right), instead of imaginary ones.
Other than abortion and gay marraige, every personal decision is up to them and you know it.
I "know" no such thing. I am against gambling and support a public smoking ban, but my decisions were based on how each of these issues impacts OTHERS, not the individual making the poor decision. In very many cases friends, family members and co-workers suffer consequences, and taxpayers have to pick up some of the cost. Your claim that the consequences of smoking or gambling are "not nearly as bad a decision as gettting an abortion" I strongly disagree.
You know who the real morons are though? The Liberals. I'm sorry, I know I have retained from bashing people for a long time, and there's plenty bad to say about Conservatives too, but this is just necessary.
This isn't true or necessary.
...if Communism were to be implemented here, the results would be the same. Complete and utter failure.
WHY are you spending your time worrying about something that has a ZERO chance of happening??! Me, I'm more worried about the growing divide between the rich and the poor -- and the fact that those in the upper class pay for our elections. Those who pay for our elections expect a return on their investment. This has never been more clear than with the bush administration. This is what scares me. Not an imaginary Communist takeover. If Democracy falls in the US I believe we're MUCH more likely to become a fascist state than a Communist one.
The truth is, I don't think Communism is really what Liberals want. The ideas and the economics maybe, but not the death and destruction that goes along with it. They just don't know what they're getting themselves into.
That's bull. Liberals don't idealize Communism. Some Liberals lean more towards Socialism -- but Socialism isn't Communism. I think you're either confused or ignorant on this point.
But truthfully, regulating the free market doesn't fix poverty either. Free market Capitalism does a better job making the people happy than anything else.
I do not support "free market" policies. I support FAIR trade, not FREE trade. Free trade benefits only the wealthy. Those "winning" companies you refer to? They are located in China and Mexico. Are you saying that if a person loses his job in the US he should move to China because they are hiring there?!
The only people who can't get jobs are lazy bums.
So you're saying that if all the "lazy bums" were subtracted from the unemployment numbers those figures would show 100 percent employment? Another completely false and ignorant statement. It's easy to say that people are unemployed because they're "lazy" rather than do something to address the problem.
But maybe you don't care about freedom. Maybe you don't care about liberty.
Maybe you don't care about these things. After all you don't support the concept of three equal branchs of goverment which is so central to the success of our Democracy. Based on your past statements I'd say you support bush's "unitary executive" theory. Again, this is closer to Fascism than to Communism.
Allisoni said...
"Who in the U.S. has ever said that communism works and has honestly tried to execute it?"
I never said anyone has tried to execute it yet. What I'm saying is if the constituents move that way the party will too eventually. I believe it was you who were sympathizing with John Lennon and Che Guevara, and defending Communism in my last post. I'm not saying the left is Communist right now, I'm saying they are inching toward it and I am showing them why they shouldn't.
"The statement that "the only choice they give you is the one to kill your baby, or marry your horse" is COMPLETELY ignorant, for more reason that one. You cannot marry a horse. Do not compare homosexuality to people marrying animals. That makes you look stupid and bigoted. If you want people to think that of you, keep it up."
It was a hyperbole used to make a point. And by the way I am not bigoted, in fact I am okay with abortion and gay marraige (I said it in my post), but I believe the people deserve more choices than that and Liberals don't give you that. I explained that with the example of gambling and smoking, but there are plenty more examples.
Dervish said...
"I agree with Allisoni Balloni -- please let us know exactly WHO you are referring to."
Radical Leftists. And not neccessarily people who actually believe in Communism, because while that is there, it isn't as big. There are however, a lot of radicals who are experimenting with the ideas of Communism and as I said, inching toward it. That is why I am presenting these kind of horror stories that go on in Communist countries, so people fully understand that it is an evil ideology.
"This is what scares me. Not an imaginary Communist takeover. If Democracy falls in the US I believe we're MUCH more likely to become a fascist state than a Communist one."
Like I said, there is plenty bad to say about Conservatives too as some of them have gone way too far to the right. Fascism is also a possible happening and just as scary.
I've said this to my friends before, in a few decades, America will have a Fascist and Communist party if we allow the polarization of our country to keep exponential. That is why we need more than a two party system.
"That's bull. Liberals don't idealize Communism. Some Liberals lean more towards Socialism -- but Socialism isn't Communism. I think you're either confused or ignorant on this point."
Which according to Marx is the phase a society goes through before reaching Communism. And even if that weren't to happen, I find Socialism very scary as well. If I am to stop these wild ideas I've got to show what happens when you go too far so we don't. You can call it a preemptive strike on ideologies.
"Are you saying that if a person loses his job in the US he should move to China because they are hiring there?!"
Huh? No! I'm saying in America there is always winning and loosing companies, so theoretically if you get fired from a loosing company, then somewhere there is a winning company who is willing to hire you.
"So you're saying that if all the "lazy bums" were subtracted from the unemployment numbers those figures would show 100 percent employment?"
No. There are people with handicaps who deserve our help. But the bums do not. The most they should get is trial welfare to get them on their feet and working so they can support themselves. And if that's to much for them, a lot of the time the government can help people find jobs. But there's some people out there who just don't want to work, and they don't deserve a cent of unearned money.
"Maybe you don't care about these things. After all you don't support the concept of three equal branchs of goverment which is so central to the success of our Democracy. Based on your past statements I'd say you support bush's "unitary executive" theory. Again, this is closer to Fascism than to Communism."
Let me guess, you're getting that idea from articles written on my last blog? When I was a right-wing Conservative? Sorry, but I'm not like that anymore. I am a Libertarian who sees radicals on both sides as a danger to our country.
"Who in the U.S. has ever said that communism works and has honestly tried to execute it?"
I never said anyone has tried to execute it yet. What I'm saying is if the constituents move that way the party will too eventually. I believe it was you who were sympathizing with John Lennon and Che Guevara, and defending Communism in my last post. I'm not saying the left is Communist right now, I'm saying they are inching toward it and I am showing them why they shouldn't.
"The statement that "the only choice they give you is the one to kill your baby, or marry your horse" is COMPLETELY ignorant, for more reason that one. You cannot marry a horse. Do not compare homosexuality to people marrying animals. That makes you look stupid and bigoted. If you want people to think that of you, keep it up."
It was a hyperbole used to make a point. And by the way I am not bigoted, in fact I am okay with abortion and gay marraige (I said it in my post), but I believe the people deserve more choices than that and Liberals don't give you that. I explained that with the example of gambling and smoking, but there are plenty more examples.
Dervish said...
"I agree with Allisoni Balloni -- please let us know exactly WHO you are referring to."
Radical Leftists. And not neccessarily people who actually believe in Communism, because while that is there, it isn't as big. There are however, a lot of radicals who are experimenting with the ideas of Communism and as I said, inching toward it. That is why I am presenting these kind of horror stories that go on in Communist countries, so people fully understand that it is an evil ideology.
"This is what scares me. Not an imaginary Communist takeover. If Democracy falls in the US I believe we're MUCH more likely to become a fascist state than a Communist one."
Like I said, there is plenty bad to say about Conservatives too as some of them have gone way too far to the right. Fascism is also a possible happening and just as scary.
I've said this to my friends before, in a few decades, America will have a Fascist and Communist party if we allow the polarization of our country to keep exponential. That is why we need more than a two party system.
"That's bull. Liberals don't idealize Communism. Some Liberals lean more towards Socialism -- but Socialism isn't Communism. I think you're either confused or ignorant on this point."
Which according to Marx is the phase a society goes through before reaching Communism. And even if that weren't to happen, I find Socialism very scary as well. If I am to stop these wild ideas I've got to show what happens when you go too far so we don't. You can call it a preemptive strike on ideologies.
"Are you saying that if a person loses his job in the US he should move to China because they are hiring there?!"
Huh? No! I'm saying in America there is always winning and loosing companies, so theoretically if you get fired from a loosing company, then somewhere there is a winning company who is willing to hire you.
"So you're saying that if all the "lazy bums" were subtracted from the unemployment numbers those figures would show 100 percent employment?"
No. There are people with handicaps who deserve our help. But the bums do not. The most they should get is trial welfare to get them on their feet and working so they can support themselves. And if that's to much for them, a lot of the time the government can help people find jobs. But there's some people out there who just don't want to work, and they don't deserve a cent of unearned money.
"Maybe you don't care about these things. After all you don't support the concept of three equal branchs of goverment which is so central to the success of our Democracy. Based on your past statements I'd say you support bush's "unitary executive" theory. Again, this is closer to Fascism than to Communism."
Let me guess, you're getting that idea from articles written on my last blog? When I was a right-wing Conservative? Sorry, but I'm not like that anymore. I am a Libertarian who sees radicals on both sides as a danger to our country.
Just as few as the Democrats, I was only focusing on Liberals because this discussion is about Communism and Socialism, two things the left seem to like. And yes, I do see people on the left who believe in Communism. Not all out, but again, experimenting with the ideas.
If this post made me sound Conservative, I apologize, because I'm not. I am a Libertarian. I just hate Communism with a passion, and this news story of China killing 15 Christians sparked some rage in me. And it wasn't the usual rage toward both sides. But I can assure you I would feel the same anger if there were a story about Fascism, I will get to that topic in due time. Because I despise Fascism just as much as Communism. They are both evil ideologies that should be avoided. When either side starts showing their traits or sympathizing with their ideas, I get concerned.
If this post made me sound Conservative, I apologize, because I'm not. I am a Libertarian. I just hate Communism with a passion, and this news story of China killing 15 Christians sparked some rage in me. And it wasn't the usual rage toward both sides. But I can assure you I would feel the same anger if there were a story about Fascism, I will get to that topic in due time. Because I despise Fascism just as much as Communism. They are both evil ideologies that should be avoided. When either side starts showing their traits or sympathizing with their ideas, I get concerned.
I really don't know why you and Dervish still insist I am a Conservative. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not. I've told you this. You guys can't debate me like you do everyone else you disagree with. Liberals can't assume that all people who aren't Liberals are Conservatives, and vica versa. You've got to learn to debate me for what I am, a Libertarian. What you're doing is as ridiculous as adressing me by the name Hubert instead of Cody. So what do people do in that situation? They don't respond. Debate me for what I am or I will just ignore your comments.
I'm not saying that you're conservative. But frankly, one of the two sides has to be in power. And if you're bashing one of them this extremely, then you probably think the other side is more fit to govern. And that would be the conservatives.
I'll have to read this all later and comment on it. But I would say that it is the Republicans who give you more choices. They're the party of small government and therefore give you more freedom. Unfourtuanatly they're not sticking to that ideal as well as they should.
# posted by : 12/01/2006 2:26 PM
: 12/01/2006 2:26 PM
Allisoni Balloni said... I'm not saying that you're conservative.
I am. He holds some liberal views on abortion and stem cell research, but for the most part I would still describe "Hubert" as a Conservative.
Cody O. Said... You've got to learn to debate me for what I am, a Libertarian.
REAL Libertarians are AGAINST bush's military commissions bill and illegal wiretaping. I think you have been clear where you stand on these two issues. As far as I'm concerned you're still a Republican Hubert (for the most part).
Cody O. Said... Radical Leftists.
I don't know of any radical leftists in power. Do you? On the other hand, there are members of the Radical Right in the White House right now.
Cody Said... There are however, a lot of radicals who are experimenting with the ideas of Communism and as I said, inching toward it.
But you can't give any examples? How do you know they exist if you can't name anyone who is doing this?
Cody O. Said... according to Marx (socialism) is the phase a society goes through before reaching Communism.
I say that neoconservatism is the a phase society goes through before reaching fascism.
Cody Said... I'm saying in America there is always winning and loosing companies, so theoretically if you get fired from a loosing company, then somewhere there is a winning company who is willing to hire you.
My point was that the "winning" company moved it's jobs to another country. So, theoretically, the "winning" company wouldn't hire an American.
Robert M. Said... They're the party of small government and therefore give you more freedom.
"Small Government"? That's a joke. Like I've pointed out before, it is the Conservatives who are responsible for the BULK of the national debt.
What "freedoms" are you referring to? The freedom to own a semi-automatic weapon? The freedom to a lighter sentence if you can afford expensive representation? The freedom to protect the sanctity of your hetrosexual marriage? The freedom to condemn others for their "perverted" lifestyle choices? The freedom to deny women their reproducive rights? The freedom to deny people the right to die with dignity?
How about the freedom to pay less than minimum wage? Or the freedom to pollute and let the taxpayer foot the cleanup bill? Maybe you're talking about the freedom to buy elections? Or the freedom to receive corporate welfare? Or the freedom to use tax shelters to avoid paying your fair share in taxes? Or the freedom to pass on your wealth tax free to your heirs? What about the "freedom" to move your corporation's headquarters to the Caymen Islands and avoid paying your fair share of US corporate income taxes?
I think most people are AGAINST these "freedoms".
I am. He holds some liberal views on abortion and stem cell research, but for the most part I would still describe "Hubert" as a Conservative.
Cody O. Said... You've got to learn to debate me for what I am, a Libertarian.
REAL Libertarians are AGAINST bush's military commissions bill and illegal wiretaping. I think you have been clear where you stand on these two issues. As far as I'm concerned you're still a Republican Hubert (for the most part).
Cody O. Said... Radical Leftists.
I don't know of any radical leftists in power. Do you? On the other hand, there are members of the Radical Right in the White House right now.
Cody Said... There are however, a lot of radicals who are experimenting with the ideas of Communism and as I said, inching toward it.
But you can't give any examples? How do you know they exist if you can't name anyone who is doing this?
Cody O. Said... according to Marx (socialism) is the phase a society goes through before reaching Communism.
I say that neoconservatism is the a phase society goes through before reaching fascism.
Cody Said... I'm saying in America there is always winning and loosing companies, so theoretically if you get fired from a loosing company, then somewhere there is a winning company who is willing to hire you.
My point was that the "winning" company moved it's jobs to another country. So, theoretically, the "winning" company wouldn't hire an American.
Robert M. Said... They're the party of small government and therefore give you more freedom.
"Small Government"? That's a joke. Like I've pointed out before, it is the Conservatives who are responsible for the BULK of the national debt.
What "freedoms" are you referring to? The freedom to own a semi-automatic weapon? The freedom to a lighter sentence if you can afford expensive representation? The freedom to protect the sanctity of your hetrosexual marriage? The freedom to condemn others for their "perverted" lifestyle choices? The freedom to deny women their reproducive rights? The freedom to deny people the right to die with dignity?
How about the freedom to pay less than minimum wage? Or the freedom to pollute and let the taxpayer foot the cleanup bill? Maybe you're talking about the freedom to buy elections? Or the freedom to receive corporate welfare? Or the freedom to use tax shelters to avoid paying your fair share in taxes? Or the freedom to pass on your wealth tax free to your heirs? What about the "freedom" to move your corporation's headquarters to the Caymen Islands and avoid paying your fair share of US corporate income taxes?
I think most people are AGAINST these "freedoms".
Yeah and dervish, again, the fact is Republicans run on the theory of small government. It's not an opinion, it's political science. If you don't even know what they stand for you really don't have a right to debate them now do you?
# posted by : 12/05/2006 3:49 PM
: 12/05/2006 3:49 PM
Oh and by the way you said: The freedom to own a semi-automatic weapon?
You mean an automatic? Because semi-autos are each pull of the trigger, not hold down on the trigger to keep shooting. Most guns people own are semi-auto in fact. I think you may be reffering to the automatic weapons ban, as in "fully automatic."
If you did mean you want to ban semi-automatics, well you're worse than I thought. But never mind that's not the issue. Just asking for clarification here.
You mean an automatic? Because semi-autos are each pull of the trigger, not hold down on the trigger to keep shooting. Most guns people own are semi-auto in fact. I think you may be reffering to the automatic weapons ban, as in "fully automatic."
If you did mean you want to ban semi-automatics, well you're worse than I thought. But never mind that's not the issue. Just asking for clarification here.
# posted by : 12/05/2006 3:55 PM
: 12/05/2006 3:55 PM
Robert M. Said... Most guns people own are semi-auto in fact. I think you may be reffering to the automatic weapons ban, as in "fully automatic".
No, I wasn't referring to fully automatic weapons.
I'm not a weapons expert, but the article you linked to does not explain the technology as I understand it. It says "fully automatic" refers to a weapon which "will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held or until it runs out of ammunition". I agree with that, but then it goes on to say, "firearms firing bursts of more than one round (usually three) per pull of the trigger... are generally considered fully automatic". I'd disagree with that sentence as it contradicts the first definition.
When I said "semi" I was referring to a weapon which fires a burst (more than one round) for each pull of the trigger.
Replace "semi-automatic" from my original post with "assault". An assault weapons ban was passed by President Clinton as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Despite his promise to renew the ban, President George W. Bush and Congress allowed the ban to "sunset" in September of 2004. (The assault weapons ban: Frequently asked questions)
According to Wikipedia, the most most famous provision of this bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic "assault weapons" as well as many others defined by a combination of 5 features.
These are the weapons I was referring to. I could care less if you think that makes me "worse than you thought".
BTW I don't believe for an instant that you are "Just asking for clarification". You're attempting to make yourself look smarter. As usual. Why don't you grow up already?
Cody O'Connor said... You read my last comment, you can't call me what I am so I just won't respond.
Hmm, I was expecting you to explain why what I said was wrong. I guess you can't do that.
No, I wasn't referring to fully automatic weapons.
I'm not a weapons expert, but the article you linked to does not explain the technology as I understand it. It says "fully automatic" refers to a weapon which "will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held or until it runs out of ammunition". I agree with that, but then it goes on to say, "firearms firing bursts of more than one round (usually three) per pull of the trigger... are generally considered fully automatic". I'd disagree with that sentence as it contradicts the first definition.
When I said "semi" I was referring to a weapon which fires a burst (more than one round) for each pull of the trigger.
Replace "semi-automatic" from my original post with "assault". An assault weapons ban was passed by President Clinton as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Despite his promise to renew the ban, President George W. Bush and Congress allowed the ban to "sunset" in September of 2004. (The assault weapons ban: Frequently asked questions)
According to Wikipedia, the most most famous provision of this bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic "assault weapons" as well as many others defined by a combination of 5 features.
These are the weapons I was referring to. I could care less if you think that makes me "worse than you thought".
BTW I don't believe for an instant that you are "Just asking for clarification". You're attempting to make yourself look smarter. As usual. Why don't you grow up already?
Cody O'Connor said... You read my last comment, you can't call me what I am so I just won't respond.
Hmm, I was expecting you to explain why what I said was wrong. I guess you can't do that.
Robert M. said... Yeah and dervish, again, the fact is Republicans run on the theory of small government. It's not an opinion, it's political science. If you don't even know what they stand for you really don't have a right to debate them now do you?
You want to know what gives me the right to debate this point? How about the fact that Democrats are infinitely more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Why don't you tell me what gives you the right to keep throwing this obvious lie in my face?!
I too could say that I "stand" for something but then do the exact opposite. Of what relevance is it that the Republicans SAY they stand for "small government" when they don't practice it? Seeing as it points out the fact that your guys are liars, I don't understand why you keep drawing my attention to these lies... as if it proves something (other than the fact that your guys are full of crap).
You want to know what gives me the right to debate this point? How about the fact that Democrats are infinitely more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Why don't you tell me what gives you the right to keep throwing this obvious lie in my face?!
I too could say that I "stand" for something but then do the exact opposite. Of what relevance is it that the Republicans SAY they stand for "small government" when they don't practice it? Seeing as it points out the fact that your guys are liars, I don't understand why you keep drawing my attention to these lies... as if it proves something (other than the fact that your guys are full of crap).
About the gun thing, thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to debate that issue, but it seemed to me you couldn't be that liberal, so I had to ask.
You want to know what gives me the right to debate this point? How about the fact that Democrats are infinitely more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Why don't you tell me what gives you the right to keep throwing this obvious lie in my face?!
What do economics have to do with whether Democrats are big government supporters? That's the point I made, so I fail to see what economics have to do with it.
I too could say that I "stand" for something but then do the exact opposite. Of what relevance is it that the Republicans SAY they stand for "small government" when they don't practice it? Seeing as it points out the fact that your guys are liars, I don't understand why you keep drawing my attention to these lies... as if it proves something (other than the fact that your guys are full of crap).
Well after cutting the unbridled hatred and political intolerance out of that statement you seem to basically just be denying my point. That's not exactly, you know, valid or anything. I had hoped for an intellegent reason why Republicans are supposedly big government (again a laughable notion given that they're famous for NOT being so) but I suppose I was wrong to expect a reasoned response.
You want to know what gives me the right to debate this point? How about the fact that Democrats are infinitely more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Why don't you tell me what gives you the right to keep throwing this obvious lie in my face?!
What do economics have to do with whether Democrats are big government supporters? That's the point I made, so I fail to see what economics have to do with it.
I too could say that I "stand" for something but then do the exact opposite. Of what relevance is it that the Republicans SAY they stand for "small government" when they don't practice it? Seeing as it points out the fact that your guys are liars, I don't understand why you keep drawing my attention to these lies... as if it proves something (other than the fact that your guys are full of crap).
Well after cutting the unbridled hatred and political intolerance out of that statement you seem to basically just be denying my point. That's not exactly, you know, valid or anything. I had hoped for an intellegent reason why Republicans are supposedly big government (again a laughable notion given that they're famous for NOT being so) but I suppose I was wrong to expect a reasoned response.
# posted by : 12/07/2006 5:18 PM
: 12/07/2006 5:18 PM
We've been over this before. As you recall, I rejected your definition of "big government". It appears as though your side defines a government as "big" if it provides services which are of benefit to people. I define it simply as spending huge amounts of money -- and going into debt to do so. Which the current administration has been doing. Do you really want to debate this fact?
Republicans are NOT "famous" for being the anti big government party. They are "famous" (infamous is more like it) for being the party that SAYS they are the party of fiscal responsibility. However, as I previously pointed out, their track record proves otherwise. This is where my "unbridled hatred and political intolerance" comes from -- I have ZERO tolerance for liars.
YOU seem to basically just be denying MY point. I guess I was right to NOT expect a reasoned response. I received the response I expected: That you'd continue to cling to these lies regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. Now that is truly laughable.
Robert M. Said... What do economics have to do with whether Democrats are big government supporters? That's the point I made, so I fail to see what economics have to do with it.
What do economics NOT have to do with it? You don't care how much the government is spending so long as that money isn't going to help people and instead going towards things like waste and fraud? I would believe that if you admitted it. I wouldn't understand it, but I would believe it.
Republicans are NOT "famous" for being the anti big government party. They are "famous" (infamous is more like it) for being the party that SAYS they are the party of fiscal responsibility. However, as I previously pointed out, their track record proves otherwise. This is where my "unbridled hatred and political intolerance" comes from -- I have ZERO tolerance for liars.
YOU seem to basically just be denying MY point. I guess I was right to NOT expect a reasoned response. I received the response I expected: That you'd continue to cling to these lies regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. Now that is truly laughable.
Robert M. Said... What do economics have to do with whether Democrats are big government supporters? That's the point I made, so I fail to see what economics have to do with it.
What do economics NOT have to do with it? You don't care how much the government is spending so long as that money isn't going to help people and instead going towards things like waste and fraud? I would believe that if you admitted it. I wouldn't understand it, but I would believe it.
We've been over this before. As you recall, I rejected your definition of "big government". It appears as though your side defines a government as "big" if it provides services which are of benefit to people. I define it simply as spending huge amounts of money -- and going into debt to do so. Which the current administration has been doing. Do you really want to debate this fact?
I don't think you can really judge Republicans by Mr. Bush alone. After all, a lot of us feel that he's not Republican enough. I'm talking about real Republicans like Reagan, who instituted massive tax cuts and eliminated many government programs. If you want to see who Republicans think represented them best look at Reagan, not Bush.
What do economics NOT have to do with it? You don't care how much the government is spending so long as that money isn't going to help people and instead going towards things like waste and fraud? I would believe that if you admitted it. I wouldn't understand it, but I would believe it.
Um what exactly are you saying? Are you insinuating I like corruption and fraud? That's... an interesting theory. Uh-huh, well, I don’t think I really need to respond to that one. Can we debate issues instead of throwing around cheap accusations please?
I don't think you can really judge Republicans by Mr. Bush alone. After all, a lot of us feel that he's not Republican enough. I'm talking about real Republicans like Reagan, who instituted massive tax cuts and eliminated many government programs. If you want to see who Republicans think represented them best look at Reagan, not Bush.
What do economics NOT have to do with it? You don't care how much the government is spending so long as that money isn't going to help people and instead going towards things like waste and fraud? I would believe that if you admitted it. I wouldn't understand it, but I would believe it.
Um what exactly are you saying? Are you insinuating I like corruption and fraud? That's... an interesting theory. Uh-huh, well, I don’t think I really need to respond to that one. Can we debate issues instead of throwing around cheap accusations please?
# posted by : 12/07/2006 7:17 PM
: 12/07/2006 7:17 PM
Robert M. Said... I don't think you can really judge Republicans by Mr. Bush alone.
I'm not. The national debt first exploded under Reagan. The fact that you're holding him up as a role model only PROVES my point. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy and drive up the national debt. THAT is what they stand for. Not "small government". That's just the lie they use to get morons to vote for them.
Robert M. Said... Um what exactly are you saying? Are you insinuating I like corruption and fraud? Uh-huh, well, I don’t think I really need to respond to that one.
So, instead of denying that you like corruption and fraud, you simply refuse to respond? Sounds like a "yes" to me.
I'm not. The national debt first exploded under Reagan. The fact that you're holding him up as a role model only PROVES my point. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy and drive up the national debt. THAT is what they stand for. Not "small government". That's just the lie they use to get morons to vote for them.
Robert M. Said... Um what exactly are you saying? Are you insinuating I like corruption and fraud? Uh-huh, well, I don’t think I really need to respond to that one.
So, instead of denying that you like corruption and fraud, you simply refuse to respond? Sounds like a "yes" to me.
I'm not. The national debt first exploded under Reagan. The fact that you're holding him up as a role model only PROVES my point. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy and drive up the national debt. THAT is what they stand for. Not "small government". That's just the lie they use to get morons to vote for them.
Yeah the debt did. So? Who cares? Heck, Alexander Hamilton himself didn't think debt was important. It's the market that matters. And Reagan helped that by cutting taxes and programs, which not even you can deny that he did.
So, instead of denying that you like corruption and fraud, you simply refuse to respond? Sounds like a "yes" to me.
I asked you last comment whether we could debate the actual issues instead of making cheap accusations. Your comment here sounds like a "no" to me.
Yeah the debt did. So? Who cares? Heck, Alexander Hamilton himself didn't think debt was important. It's the market that matters. And Reagan helped that by cutting taxes and programs, which not even you can deny that he did.
So, instead of denying that you like corruption and fraud, you simply refuse to respond? Sounds like a "yes" to me.
I asked you last comment whether we could debate the actual issues instead of making cheap accusations. Your comment here sounds like a "no" to me.
# posted by : 12/08/2006 1:10 PM
: 12/08/2006 1:10 PM
Robert M. Said... Yeah the debt did. So? Who cares? Heck, Alexander Hamilton himself didn't think debt was important. It's the market that matters. And Reagan helped that by cutting taxes and programs, which not even you can deny that he did.
Even if Alexander Hamilton said that, I'm sure he would disagree that running up HUGE debts didn't matter. HUGE deficits do matter. I'm not denying that Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy or cut programs for the needy. That is what cold hearted and selfish Republicans do. In answer to your question, "who cares" -- Democrats care. They don't believe that everyone else should have to suffer in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. The wealthiest 1 percent is whom Regan's policies helped, not the "market".
The Great Depression: George Bush vs Einstein on economic policy (excerpt) During a press conference [when Ari Fleisher was bush's Press Secretary}, a reporter asked if the President believed that "deficits did not matter", given the huge size of the tax cuts pushed through in this administration. The press Secretary replied that the President believed that his tax cut proposal was the best way to "create jobs". ...the Republican Administration [pushed] these tax cuts as an "economic stimulus package"...
...about half of the cuts [went] to the richest one percent of the population and the majority to the richest ten per cent. This transfer of wealth is also known as "trickle down" economics (the doctrine of the Reagan White House). When massive wealth is accumulated at the top of the pecking order, it is argued, it will eventually "trickle down" to everyone at the bottom. I need not comment on the self serving nature of this particular piece of propaganda, since it should be self evident that trickle down theory is simply a means of justifying social inequality. During the Reagan years this policy of transferring trillions of dollars to the very wealthy resulted only in a monster debt so massive that no one seriously considers paying off the principal, and the huge interests payments have robbed America of its future. In the space of just the two Reagan administrations, America went from the largest creditor nation on earth to the world's largest debtor...
Robert M. Said... I asked you last comment whether we could debate the actual issues instead of making cheap accusations.
I resent your slanderous and baseless accusation that I am making "cheap accusations". I did no such thing. I reached a obvious conclusion based on past discussions. Discussions where you adamantly refuse to admit the rampant and undeniable corruption perpetrated by the bush cronies who were given no bid Iraq and Katrina contracts.
That being the case, there is NO OTHER conclusion I could possibly reach. You're either delusional or corruption is fine by you (so long as it is your party that benefits).
Even if Alexander Hamilton said that, I'm sure he would disagree that running up HUGE debts didn't matter. HUGE deficits do matter. I'm not denying that Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy or cut programs for the needy. That is what cold hearted and selfish Republicans do. In answer to your question, "who cares" -- Democrats care. They don't believe that everyone else should have to suffer in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. The wealthiest 1 percent is whom Regan's policies helped, not the "market".
The Great Depression: George Bush vs Einstein on economic policy (excerpt) During a press conference [when Ari Fleisher was bush's Press Secretary}, a reporter asked if the President believed that "deficits did not matter", given the huge size of the tax cuts pushed through in this administration. The press Secretary replied that the President believed that his tax cut proposal was the best way to "create jobs". ...the Republican Administration [pushed] these tax cuts as an "economic stimulus package"...
...about half of the cuts [went] to the richest one percent of the population and the majority to the richest ten per cent. This transfer of wealth is also known as "trickle down" economics (the doctrine of the Reagan White House). When massive wealth is accumulated at the top of the pecking order, it is argued, it will eventually "trickle down" to everyone at the bottom. I need not comment on the self serving nature of this particular piece of propaganda, since it should be self evident that trickle down theory is simply a means of justifying social inequality. During the Reagan years this policy of transferring trillions of dollars to the very wealthy resulted only in a monster debt so massive that no one seriously considers paying off the principal, and the huge interests payments have robbed America of its future. In the space of just the two Reagan administrations, America went from the largest creditor nation on earth to the world's largest debtor...
Robert M. Said... I asked you last comment whether we could debate the actual issues instead of making cheap accusations.
I resent your slanderous and baseless accusation that I am making "cheap accusations". I did no such thing. I reached a obvious conclusion based on past discussions. Discussions where you adamantly refuse to admit the rampant and undeniable corruption perpetrated by the bush cronies who were given no bid Iraq and Katrina contracts.
That being the case, there is NO OTHER conclusion I could possibly reach. You're either delusional or corruption is fine by you (so long as it is your party that benefits).
I think you're having a hard time understanding that tax cuts benefit everyone. The only reason that they numerically "favor the rich" is because it cuts on a percentage. So therefore the rich get more taxes cut. However, they still have to pay more. Follow me? Look it's easy.
Rich guy income = $500,000/year at 5% tax
Poor guy income = $15,000/year at 5% tax.
Okay, so the rich guy pays $25,000 in taxes right? And the poor guy pays $750. So really the rich guy is actually paying a lot more, but it's fair because both are paying only 5%. Now, your confusion comes in when statisticians do it like this:
Rich guy income = $500,000/year at 2% tax cut
Poor guy income = $15,000/year at 2% tax cut.
The statisticians can twist this evidence to say that the rich guy saves $10,000 while the poor guy only saves $300. But what they don't tell you is that they both now have increased income, on the same percentage. The poor guy benefits because he walks away with $450 more.
Your belief that tax cuts hurt the poor is a belief perpetuated by statisticians who aren't giving you the full story. After all, if everyone walks away with more money, how does anyone get hurt?
Anyway, that's my point. I'm not going to respond to the accusation that I like or support fraud. I think your link only proves that I refuse to condemn a man based on shady and inconclusive evidence, and I think people who look at it will understand that.
Rich guy income = $500,000/year at 5% tax
Poor guy income = $15,000/year at 5% tax.
Okay, so the rich guy pays $25,000 in taxes right? And the poor guy pays $750. So really the rich guy is actually paying a lot more, but it's fair because both are paying only 5%. Now, your confusion comes in when statisticians do it like this:
Rich guy income = $500,000/year at 2% tax cut
Poor guy income = $15,000/year at 2% tax cut.
The statisticians can twist this evidence to say that the rich guy saves $10,000 while the poor guy only saves $300. But what they don't tell you is that they both now have increased income, on the same percentage. The poor guy benefits because he walks away with $450 more.
Your belief that tax cuts hurt the poor is a belief perpetuated by statisticians who aren't giving you the full story. After all, if everyone walks away with more money, how does anyone get hurt?
Anyway, that's my point. I'm not going to respond to the accusation that I like or support fraud. I think your link only proves that I refuse to condemn a man based on shady and inconclusive evidence, and I think people who look at it will understand that.
# posted by : 12/10/2006 11:11 AM
: 12/10/2006 11:11 AM
Robert M. said... I think you're having a hard time understanding that tax cuts benefit everyone.
I'm not having a hard time understanding a damn thing. I think you're having a hard time understanding that we have a progressive income tax. So your little example is complete BS.
The poor and middle class have suffered under bush's tax "cuts" because the Government is no longer collecting as much as they used to -- and that money is has to come from somewhere.
Who else pays for the rich? Consider a few of the ways ordinary people get screwed yet again. Head Start: The GOP wants to cut the preschool program by $1.2 billion, reducing slots for kids by 150,000. College lending: Republicans aim to cut it by $1.6 billion, eliminating funding for more than 1.4 million poor students. Smaller classes: Forget it. Despite the fevered talk about upping kids' achievement, the government proposes to spend $310 million less on schools, nixing the hiring of 6600 teachers and denying 20,000 children a chance to get into smaller classes. After-school programs: Politicians... could care less. With over three-quarters of all women with school-age children working, 5 million kids are left unsupervised every afternoon, the time when research shows they get into violent crime. Bush wants to cut after-school and summer school programs by over $160 million, removing places for 215,000 kids. Child Care: The GOP wants to cut spending on this block grant by more than $30 million, resulting in 9500 fewer child care opportunities. "Nationally, only one in 10 children who are eligible for child care assistance under federal law receives any help", writes the Economic Policy Institute. "In many states, the cost of child care now outstrips the cost of attending a public college". Unemployment: The Republican spending plan would cut assistance to dislocated workers by about $305 million, affecting services for almost 135,000 workers. (6/20/2001. Janes Ridgeway, Bushwatch.com)
The only thing your overly simplified examples prove is that you don't have a clue how things work in the REAL WORLD.
Robert M. Said... I'm not going to respond to the accusation that I like or support fraud. I think your link only proves that I refuse to condemn a man based on shady and inconclusive evidence, and I think people who look at it will understand that.
The evidence I provided was certainly NOT shady. It wasn't inconclusive either. Even if any of the charges I made could be called "inconclusive", what they definitely do prove is that investigations are in order.
If anyone does look at the thread I linked to (from your blog) what will become readily apparent to them is that you've completely blinded yourself to the truth.
I'm not having a hard time understanding a damn thing. I think you're having a hard time understanding that we have a progressive income tax. So your little example is complete BS.
The poor and middle class have suffered under bush's tax "cuts" because the Government is no longer collecting as much as they used to -- and that money is has to come from somewhere.
Who else pays for the rich? Consider a few of the ways ordinary people get screwed yet again. Head Start: The GOP wants to cut the preschool program by $1.2 billion, reducing slots for kids by 150,000. College lending: Republicans aim to cut it by $1.6 billion, eliminating funding for more than 1.4 million poor students. Smaller classes: Forget it. Despite the fevered talk about upping kids' achievement, the government proposes to spend $310 million less on schools, nixing the hiring of 6600 teachers and denying 20,000 children a chance to get into smaller classes. After-school programs: Politicians... could care less. With over three-quarters of all women with school-age children working, 5 million kids are left unsupervised every afternoon, the time when research shows they get into violent crime. Bush wants to cut after-school and summer school programs by over $160 million, removing places for 215,000 kids. Child Care: The GOP wants to cut spending on this block grant by more than $30 million, resulting in 9500 fewer child care opportunities. "Nationally, only one in 10 children who are eligible for child care assistance under federal law receives any help", writes the Economic Policy Institute. "In many states, the cost of child care now outstrips the cost of attending a public college". Unemployment: The Republican spending plan would cut assistance to dislocated workers by about $305 million, affecting services for almost 135,000 workers. (6/20/2001. Janes Ridgeway, Bushwatch.com)
The only thing your overly simplified examples prove is that you don't have a clue how things work in the REAL WORLD.
Robert M. Said... I'm not going to respond to the accusation that I like or support fraud. I think your link only proves that I refuse to condemn a man based on shady and inconclusive evidence, and I think people who look at it will understand that.
The evidence I provided was certainly NOT shady. It wasn't inconclusive either. Even if any of the charges I made could be called "inconclusive", what they definitely do prove is that investigations are in order.
If anyone does look at the thread I linked to (from your blog) what will become readily apparent to them is that you've completely blinded yourself to the truth.
I'm not sure what your article proves. Obviously we want to cut all those government programs. Since they don't really get the money to people. I just explained all this. All you're doing is preying on people's emotions, pity for the poor etc. However I am appealing to logic. Those programs? Yes, they are cut, and should be cut. Why? Because, as I said before, they can't get the money to people like private charities, or cash can, and people, including the poor, have more money when you cut taxes. Logically, it's the only way to benefit everyone.
# posted by : 12/14/2006 3:03 PM
: 12/14/2006 3:03 PM
Robert M. Said... I'm not sure what your article proves. .
What it proves is that the only thing Republicans are concerned about is tax cuts for the rich. Subtract the value of these programs from the "tax cuts" everybody else gets and most people end up in the hole. i.e. the only people benefitting from these "tax cuts" are the wealthy.
Robert M. Said... Obviously we want to cut all those government programs. Since they don't really get the money to people. I just explained all this.
What is up with these STUPID lies you keep telling? You did NOT explain this all already! How could you possibly have explained why the programs from the article I posted all "don't really get the money to people" when I JUST posted it!
As for your "emotion vs. logic arguement" -- that is complete BS as well. There are reasons to support these programs other than "pity". All the education oriented programs enable people to get higher paying jobs. These people get better paying jobs and the government gets much more back then it spent (because the person is making more and contributing more in taxes). It's logically a win-win even if you look at it from a completely unemotional angle.
Your insistance that private charites take over these functions is completely illogical. Private charities have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with head start or smaller classes. Even to those programs which private charities do contriubte -- the money they add to the pot would not be sufficient.
Robert M. Said... ...people, including the poor, have more money when you cut taxes.
As I have already explained, that is a flat out lie. All anyone has to do is think it through logically to realize that.
What it proves is that the only thing Republicans are concerned about is tax cuts for the rich. Subtract the value of these programs from the "tax cuts" everybody else gets and most people end up in the hole. i.e. the only people benefitting from these "tax cuts" are the wealthy.
Robert M. Said... Obviously we want to cut all those government programs. Since they don't really get the money to people. I just explained all this.
What is up with these STUPID lies you keep telling? You did NOT explain this all already! How could you possibly have explained why the programs from the article I posted all "don't really get the money to people" when I JUST posted it!
As for your "emotion vs. logic arguement" -- that is complete BS as well. There are reasons to support these programs other than "pity". All the education oriented programs enable people to get higher paying jobs. These people get better paying jobs and the government gets much more back then it spent (because the person is making more and contributing more in taxes). It's logically a win-win even if you look at it from a completely unemotional angle.
Your insistance that private charites take over these functions is completely illogical. Private charities have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with head start or smaller classes. Even to those programs which private charities do contriubte -- the money they add to the pot would not be sufficient.
Robert M. Said... ...people, including the poor, have more money when you cut taxes.
As I have already explained, that is a flat out lie. All anyone has to do is think it through logically to realize that.
Your insulting and angry attack does little to refute my point. I explained this multiple times already. Tax cuts for all mean everyone gets money. Do I have to do the math again like I did a few comments back?
# posted by : 12/15/2006 2:54 PM
: 12/15/2006 2:54 PM
All you're doing is preying on people's emotions -- believing that we should pity the poor overtaxed rich folks. I, on the other hand, am appealing to logic.
For most people who aren't wealthy the value of the cut programs is worth MUCH more than bush's tax "cuts".
Money the government INVESTS in educational programs is returned many times over.
Do you seriously think your simplistic math problem (which has nothing to do with reality) disproves either of these two points??
Robert M. Said... I explained this multiple times already.
Go ahead and explain it as many times as you want. As I already pointed out your "math" proves nothing because it has nothing to do with reality. Apparently you are unaware that we have a progressive income tax -- so someone who makes $500,000 is taxed at a higher rate than someone who makes $15,000 (unless they use tax shelters and other dodges to cheat the Government -- but that's a another issue).
Robert M. Said... Your insulting and angry attack does little to refute my point.
I found YOUR reply insulting. Insulting to my intelligence -- and insulting to the intelligence of anyone else reading. You must think everyone here is pretty stupid -- due to the fact that you continue to believe that we should have no problem swallowing your huge whoppers.
Seeing as you completely ignored the points I made, I'll have to assume the reason is because your argument falls apart when confronted with sound logic.
For most people who aren't wealthy the value of the cut programs is worth MUCH more than bush's tax "cuts".
Money the government INVESTS in educational programs is returned many times over.
Do you seriously think your simplistic math problem (which has nothing to do with reality) disproves either of these two points??
Robert M. Said... I explained this multiple times already.
Go ahead and explain it as many times as you want. As I already pointed out your "math" proves nothing because it has nothing to do with reality. Apparently you are unaware that we have a progressive income tax -- so someone who makes $500,000 is taxed at a higher rate than someone who makes $15,000 (unless they use tax shelters and other dodges to cheat the Government -- but that's a another issue).
Robert M. Said... Your insulting and angry attack does little to refute my point.
I found YOUR reply insulting. Insulting to my intelligence -- and insulting to the intelligence of anyone else reading. You must think everyone here is pretty stupid -- due to the fact that you continue to believe that we should have no problem swallowing your huge whoppers.
Seeing as you completely ignored the points I made, I'll have to assume the reason is because your argument falls apart when confronted with sound logic.
Okay here you go again. You're copying my qoutes sarcastically, you're insulting my intellegence, and making unfounded accusations. Again, the proof is in the math. If you don't believe in math, well, I can't help you.
# posted by : 12/16/2006 4:22 PM
: 12/16/2006 4:22 PM
I don't believe in YOUR math. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how things actually work. If you can't understand that you are BEYOND anyone's help. I find it interesting how you completly ignored every point I've made in my last TWO posts. The obvious conclusion is that you CAN'T.
Reply again without addressing my points. Bring up the "math" again. The only thing you've proven thus far is you don't understand a damn thing about how our economy works or what the Government's role is.
Reply again without addressing my points. Bring up the "math" again. The only thing you've proven thus far is you don't understand a damn thing about how our economy works or what the Government's role is.
I can't help it if you don't understand how tax cuts work mathatically. I explained it more than three times, and no, I'm not doing it again.
And you capitlized government by the way. I think that tells perople here all they really need to know about you.
And you capitlized government by the way. I think that tells perople here all they really need to know about you.
# posted by : 12/17/2006 1:50 PM
: 12/17/2006 1:50 PM
You spelled "mathematically" wrong. And "people". I thought we weren't doing that anymore (attacking each other over grammatical errors).
Your "tax cuts explained mathematically" arguement is flawed. I explained why your arguement is flawed, but all you do is ignore my arguements, and insist that if I "don't understand" your explaination -- that it's my fault.
You're BSing again -- which is how these debates ALWAYS end. You present your "proof". I point out how it is flawed. You ignore my arguments, and finally, after I've asked you to please address my points for the third or fourth time -- you either call my previous post a "rehash" or say it's too long for you to read.
Your debating technique is really quite childish and pathetic. I think it tells people all they need to know about YOU.
Your "tax cuts explained mathematically" arguement is flawed. I explained why your arguement is flawed, but all you do is ignore my arguements, and insist that if I "don't understand" your explaination -- that it's my fault.
You're BSing again -- which is how these debates ALWAYS end. You present your "proof". I point out how it is flawed. You ignore my arguments, and finally, after I've asked you to please address my points for the third or fourth time -- you either call my previous post a "rehash" or say it's too long for you to read.
Your debating technique is really quite childish and pathetic. I think it tells people all they need to know about YOU.
You spelled "mathematically" wrong. And "people". I thought we weren't doing that anymore (attacking each other over grammatical errors).
It wasn't a grammer issue I called you on. It was capitilizing government, which insinuates basically that you pretty much worship it. It's creepy. If I'd wanted to correct your grammer I'd have done it a long time ago.
It wasn't a grammer issue I called you on. It was capitilizing government, which insinuates basically that you pretty much worship it. It's creepy. If I'd wanted to correct your grammer I'd have done it a long time ago.
# posted by : 12/18/2006 3:01 PM
: 12/18/2006 3:01 PM
What I said was, "The only thing you've proven thus far is you don't understand a damn thing about how our economy works or what the Government's role is".
I was referring to a specific government -- our's. Which is why I capitalized it. No other reason.
BTW you failed to respond to my accusation. Instead you make a ridiculous claim about my "worshiping" the government.
Great non-response by the way. Since you didn't dispute anything I said in my last post (my last serveral posts, actually) I'll assume you agree with my take on how our arguments end up.
What's creepy is how brainwashed by the Right you are. That you fall in line with pretty much everything they tell you to believe insinuates that you pretty much worship them.
I was referring to a specific government -- our's. Which is why I capitalized it. No other reason.
BTW you failed to respond to my accusation. Instead you make a ridiculous claim about my "worshiping" the government.
Great non-response by the way. Since you didn't dispute anything I said in my last post (my last serveral posts, actually) I'll assume you agree with my take on how our arguments end up.
What's creepy is how brainwashed by the Right you are. That you fall in line with pretty much everything they tell you to believe insinuates that you pretty much worship them.
I was referring to a specific government -- our's. Which is why I capitalized it. No other reason.
That doesn't mean you capitalize it. Why would it matter whose it is, it's not a proper noun...
That doesn't mean you capitalize it. Why would it matter whose it is, it's not a proper noun...
# posted by : 12/19/2006 3:46 PM
: 12/19/2006 3:46 PM
Yes, I realize that. Actually I realized it at the time but decided I didn't want to go to the trouble of deleting what I had written and reposting it to get rid of that error.
But thanks anyway for the grammer lesson. In fact, everyone here should be extremely grateful that this blog has a resident genius to point these things out.
What this has to do with the topic I really have no idea. My guess is that when you realized you couldn't address what I said in my post (because your arguement would fall apart) you decided to attack me for an insignificant grammatical error.
Post a Comment
But thanks anyway for the grammer lesson. In fact, everyone here should be extremely grateful that this blog has a resident genius to point these things out.
What this has to do with the topic I really have no idea. My guess is that when you realized you couldn't address what I said in my post (because your arguement would fall apart) you decided to attack me for an insignificant grammatical error.
<< Home
