Dedicated to those here who oppose socialism and yet have not the slightest idea what socialism is. When asked, the answers ranged from outright refusal to say, to cliches without supporting detail, to a strange explanation describing capitalism as socialism.

The following may help.

The myth of Democrats being Soviet-style or radical socialists is still widely believed. Socialism is against the private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). That is not the position of the Democratic Party, the Democrats in Congress, or of Biden, Harris, or even of Sanders. What almost all Democrats advocate is a capitalist economy with proper regulation of business and social programs to provide healthcare, education, and economic security to their citizens. Not radical stuff at all.


Of course, in the minds of the far-right all Democrats are far-left radicals and Soviet-style socialists. The Democratic Party is made up of a much broader coalition of political views than the Republican Party. Within the Democratic Party there is a broad range of views on healthcare, gun control, national defense, reproductive rights, education, taxes, etc. - and all those views are openly debated. For example, while all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates advocated healthcare coverage for all, there were differing policies on how to best achieve that. The Republicans had basically one position, repeal Obamacare.


Diversity of thought on policy began to dwindle (and has all but vanished) in the Republican Party in the 1980s after the Party adopted, without compromise, Reaganomics and the social agenda of the evangelical Christian Right: cut taxes no matter the deficit, deregulate business regardless of consequences, oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage, allow evangelical Christian beliefs preferential treatment above other religions, oppose all gun control, repeal civil rights reforms, and basically erode federal authority so states can roll back reforms in civil rights and equality for minorities in education, housing, and employment.


The Republican Party has no large counterpart in any other free, democratic, industrialized nation. It is an anomaly in modern politics, stuck in a time warp that conservative parties in other free democracies left in the early to mid twentieth century.

The myth of Democrats being Soviet-style or radical socialists is still widely believed. Interesting that you have to begin, right out of the blocks, by qualifying the terms. It starts out, you said, being a discussion about socialism which only the great you knows anything about, and then transitions into only a certain category of socialism. So you muddy the waters right from the beginning.


social programs to provide healthcare, education, and economic security to their citizens. Not radical stuff at all.Not radical until the time comes to figure out how to pay for all of that. That's when the radical element comes in, which is why it is NEVER discussed by dems. Or for that matter to discuss how it is that one American somehow has a right to another American's money to use to pay for his or her education or hospital care.

You can rail and rant against socialism from within your prism of failing capitalism if you want, because your only argument is OPM, the point that you don't want to pay one penny to advantage anyone else.

Now if you embraced the idea that you don't need any more aircraft carriers you could afford better health care for your dying masses. It is truly a matter of priorities and the military imperative is not the priority, that just feeds paranoia

Now if you embraced the idea that you don't need any more aircraft carriers you could afford better health care for your dying masses. It is truly a matter of priorities and the military imperative is not the priority, that just feeds paranoiaI've been very clear about that. I'd like to see us retire a couple of carriers and then tell countries like yours that the military gravy train has been put under a shed. You will now have to pony up and prepare to defend yourselves. We will be allies, but we will not bankrupt ourselves to carry an inappropriate share of the burden.

But even if we reduce defense spending, we will be nowhere near a balanced budget. We are eventually going to have to face the music on this deal.

I would much rather exist in our medical care system than yours.

What you call capitalism I would refer to as free enterprise. It's the greatest economic development of all time and goes hand in glove with the general concept of liberty which socialism tends to limit.

What you call capitalism I would refer to as free enterprise. It's the greatest economic development of all time and goes hand in glove with the general concept of liberty which socialism tends to limit.
You don't read and retain my correct definitions, nor do you read and retain Athos' correct definitions.

I've been very clear about that. I'd like to see us retire a couple of carriers and then tell countries like yours that the military gravy train has been put under a shed. You will now have to pony up and prepare to defend yourselves. We will be allies, but we will not bankrupt ourselves to carry an inappropriate share of the burden.

But even if we reduce defense spending, we will be nowhere near a balanced budget. We are eventually going to have to face the music on this deal.

I would much rather exist in our medical care system than yours.

What you call capitalism I would refer to as free enterprise. It's the greatest economic development of all time and goes hand in glove with the general concept of liberty which socialism tends to limit.

Continue to lie to yourself, you know nothing about our medical system and it certainly is superior to yours because no one has to go without medical care because of cost. No one is bankrupted to obtain medical care here. Capitalism, as you call it, has certain disadvantages, notably that it is based on exploitation..The brand of free enterprise you practise lacks social responsibility

My country has increased its military expenditure but it all takes time. We are responding to threats generated by your belligerant foreign policy, our size makes us an easy target for your opponents, who you consistently antagonise. Witness the current attitude of China to my nation, they consider us your lapdog and treat us accordingly and why? we echoed your call for a CV19 investigation, we have participated in your "freedom of navigation" exercises, we are your ally and while we share your concerns for the treatment of Tibetians and Yughars, you treat your migrants in the same way. So take your hyprocracy and put it where the light doesn't shine

Now if you embraced the idea that you don't need any more aircraft carriers you could afford better health care for your dying masses
I agree we do not need any more aircraft carriers . But the cost of a Ford class super carrier is piss in the ocean compared to the costs of socialized healthcare and all the other gimmee programs the socialists/progressive /liberals /Democrats (whatever you want to call the goodies for nothing crowd ) want . You want the REAL definition of socialism American style ? It is "gimmee..... but takey from someone else to pay for it" . I see a Mel Gibson like character instead of screaming FREEDOM !! yelling FREEBIES !!!! They want dependence on the government but they don't want the government control over their lives that comes with the deal .

My country has increased its military expenditure but it all takes time. We are responding to threats generated by your belligerant foreign policy, our size makes us an easy target for your opponents, who you consistently antagonise. Witness the current attitude of China to my nation, they consider us your lapdog and treat us accordingly and why? we echoed your call for a CV19 investigation, we have participated in your "freedom of navigation" exercises, we are your ally and while we share your concerns for the treatment of Tibetians and Yughars, you treat your migrants in the same way. So take your hyprocracy and put it where the light doesn't shine

hmmm I guess you have to make a choice about which nation you want to be vassals to. China's aggression to almost all of it's neighbors is because of America ? Ok then .... I never saw your country as a nation of sheeple .

you know nothing about our medical system and it certainly is superior to yours because no one has to go without medical care because of cost. No one is bankrupted to obtain medical care here. I know you have to take money from person A to pay for person B's med care. That limits both persons' liberty. I much prefer my med care being an issue between my doc and me.


Capitalism, as you call it, has certain disadvantages, notably that it is based on exploitation..The brand of free enterprise you practise lacks social responsibilityCapitalism is not based on exploitation. It is based on who owns what. And as for our "brand" of free enterprise, you don't have the slightest idea what it does, or does not, lack.


My country has increased its military expenditure but it all takes time.The great excuse. But bear in mind that I don't care what you do. I care about what we do, and that needs to be cutting military spending and then telling countries like yours to grow up and take care of yourselves. Either that, or learn to speak Chinese.


So take your hyprocracy and put it where the light doesn't shineYour usual, well thought out logic at work.

I know you have to take money from person A to pay for person B's med care. That limits both persons' liberty.

How little you know our health care is paid for by a levy on all taxpayers or private health care, no one takes from anyone else


Capitalism is not based on exploitation. It is based on who owns what. I wonder if Adam Smith thought that


The great excuse. But bear in mind that I don't care what you do. I care about what we do, and that needs to be cutting military spending and then telling countries like yours to grow up and take care of yourselves. I think it would be good if we stopped wasting our resources following you into wars you cannot win, It is we who pay for our participation, not you, so you owe us a debt, not the other way around


Your usual, well thought logic at work.

at least what I say is logical, not ideological rhetoric

a levy on all taxpayers or private health care, no one takes from anyone elseYou do realize the contradiction you have just posted? At any rate, when person B cannot pay for his med bill, and his tax "levy" doesn't even come close to covering it, then you take tax money from person A to help pay it. It's a concept a fifth grader can easily see and understand.


I think it would be good if we stopped wasting our resources following you into wars you cannot win, It is we who pay for our participation, not you, so you owe us a debt, not the other way aroundAnd I'm not arguing with you about that. You don't want to participate? Fine with me. I'm just saying I don't want us spending multiple billions which allows you to get by with spending less than you should. And again, I don't care what your country does, and I say that with great respect and admiration for the Aussie people. But I care what we do. You want to let the Chinese come in and kick your tails because your military is underfunded? Go for it, but don't assume we are going to come running in to rescue you when you haven't done what you should have done to begin with. That's what I'm sick of. And reading the disrespectful, ungrateful, and hateful comments from you makes it even more sickening. I think most of our "allies" need a few years of having to get along without us to remind them of how much this country does for the rest of the unappreciative, arrogant world.


at least what I say is logicalWhen did you start that?

Were you paying attention when your dufusist ideology was booted from office the last election?

What does that have to do with this conversation?

But the cost of a Ford class super carrier is piss in the ocean compared to the costs of socialized healthcare

What is "socialized" healthcare?


and all the other gimmee programs the socialists/progressive /liberals /Democrats (whatever you want to call the goodies for nothing crowd ) want

Please name the programs the "socialists/progressive /liberals /Democrats (whatever you want to call the goodies for nothing crowd ) want.


You want the REAL definition of socialism American style ? It is "gimmee..... but takey from someone else to pay for it" .

Does that include all the programs supported by taxation? Or only the ones you don't like.


They want dependence on the government but they don't want the government control over their lives that comes with the deal .

Do you object to child labor laws? Licensing drivers? Military spending? Social Security? Etc., etc., etc.

What does that have to do with this conversation?

Joe is for taxing the rich to help the poor and giving them healthcare which the dufusists like you make the rich richer and screw the poor sick people. You wingers love to use labels to denigrate others while elevating yourselves. You capitalists dufusites are no better than the socialists communists you rail against.

That's why that thinking was voted down and OUT!

Child labor laws are reforms of capitalism ;not socialism


Military spending is defined in the constitution ;a mandated government service to provide for the common defense .

Licensing drivers is a state issue ;but no that is not socialism .Driving is a privilege ;not a right .A person has to be of an age and have a competence to safely drive before being permitted to do so .

Social Security ...... The government, not individuals or businesses, runs the Social Security system. It tracks Social Security earnings and benefits, approves or denies retirement benefit applications, collects taxes and distributes benefits . Social security is socialism and I do not like the ponzi scheme at all .

Joe is for taxing the rich to help the poor and giving them healthcare which the dufusists like you make the rich richer and screw the poor sick people. You wingers love to use labels to denigrate others while elevating yourselves. You capitalists dufusites are no better than the socialists communists you rail against.If you think that Biden's tax increases will in any way pay for healthcare for all, then you have been drinking the Biden kool aid for waaayyyyyy too long. It's just another liberal fantasy. It's like pretending that putting a gallon of gas into a car will enable a trip of a thousand miles. It's ludicrous.

But I EAGERLY anticipate the day when they increase the taxes on your bxtt in order to pay for all of this Alice in Wonderland approach, and to hear you howling when they force you to actually pony up and pay for these things with some of your own money which you have absolutely no present intention of doing. It's just another episode of your painless (for you) charitable intentions. "I love poor people so much that I am willing to make other people help them out."

How little you know our health care is paid for by a levy on all taxpayers or private health care, no one takes from anyone else
Exactly!
https://www.schumachercargo.com/australia-health-care/#:~:text=Australian%20health%20care%20insurances%2 0are%20offered%20by%20private,would%20be%20to%20re gister%20for%20this%20Medicare%20system.

A person would have to be an idiot to not understand that when a low income person gets an operation, they have not even come close to paying for that operation with their "levy". So where do you suppose the extra money comes from?

You do realize the contradiction you have just posted? At any rate, when person B cannot pay for his med bill, and his tax "levy" doesn't even come close to covering it, then you take tax money from person A to help pay it. It's a concept a fifth grader can easily see and understand.

You are like a broken record, endlessly repeating yourself


And I'm not arguing with you about that. You don't want to participate? Fine with me. I'm just saying I don't want us spending multiple billions which allows you to get by with spending less than you should. And again, I don't care what your country does, and I say that with great respect and admiration for the Aussie people. But I care what we do. You want to let the Chinese come in and kick your tails because your military is underfunded? Go for it, but don't assume we are going to come running in to rescue you when you haven't done what you should have done to begin with. That's what I'm sick of. And reading the disrespectful, ungrateful, and hateful comments from you makes it even more sickening. I think most of our "allies" need a few years of having to get along without us to remind them of how much this country does for the rest of the unappreciative, arrogant world.

No one asked you to spend billions on the military and neglect your own population. No one asked you to start wars that drag on for years with failure as the ineveitable result. You speak of the rest of the world as arrogant, but it is you who are arrogant. What have we got to be grateful for? It is you who committed yourselves only after you were attacked in both WWI and WWII, it is your arrogant actions that brought the Chinese into the Korean war, need I go on


When did you start that?

It has always been so

You are like a broken record, endlessly repeating yourselfThat's kind of how the truth works.

As for our supposed arrogance, if you will check out the citizens of S. Korea, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Israel, and a number of others, they will express their appreciation for American backbone over the years that resulted in their current free states. It was not the Aussie military that forced the Soviets into practical bankruptcy and essentially ended the Cold War.

You're welcome.

And I'll say it again. I'm all for you guys undertaking your own national defense without depending on us sending the cavalry at the first threat of Aussie distress.


It has always been soIf you really believe that, then the problem is beginning to become clear.

If you really believe that, then the problem is beginning to become clear.

Yes the problem is clear, american arrogance, the "we rule the world" complex and the "the world owes us" complex. You are proud of destroying the soviet economy when in fact their military adventurism is what destroyed their economy and there is a lesson there that you have yet to learn. I'm glad that Australia had no part in destroying their economy and I'm glad we will take no part in destroying yours and yet you take pride in the destruction of other nations and the building up of aggressors like Japan and Germany. You once defended China and now you have made them your enemy. You do know it doesn't make sense.

There is a lot you could learn from our approach and yet you are too arrogant to realise it. You think might is right and an attitude like that inevitably leads to war. Your nation is presently being devastated by a disease that in your arrogance you say we can afford business as usual and it is too expensive to help out our destitue populations. Do you realise there may be a good reason why america is not mentioned in the Bible

"we rule the world"No.
"the world owes us" Absolutely.
You are proud of destroying the soviet economy when in fact their military adventurism is what destroyed their economy and there is a lesson there that you have yet to learn.I didn't say we destroyed their economy. I said they went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in a global arms race. As for the lesson we need to learn, for for the fifth or sixth time I will repeat that I am all for us scaling back and telling Australia (and others), "We are no longer your guarantee. We will be your ally, but we will not be your fence post to lean on. Take care of yourself. We are not your welfare daddy."


Do you realise there may be a good reason why america is not mentioned in the BibleYou mean like Australia is???

No. Absolutely. I didn't say we destroyed their economy. I said they went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in a global arms race. As for the lesson we need to learn, for for the fifth or sixth time I will repeat that I am all for us scaling back and telling Australia (and others), "We are no longer your guarantee. We will be your ally, but we will not be your fence post to lean on. Take care of yourself. We are not your welfare daddy."

You mean like Australia is???

Yes the south land is mentioned, it seems we will suffer many trials. You have a treaty with us so there is a mutual obligation there something we take seriously and it is costly. We don't expect welfare from you, with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess.

Your Trump attitude is showing but your leader was a flash in the pan

with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess.And you think we're arrogant? Wow. Hello, Mr. Kettle.

Your 2019 GDP was about 1.4 tril. Ours was over 20 tril. You are 1/10th of our population, but much less than 1/10th of our GDP. So if you had our population, you would trail us by over 6 trillion dollars. So much for that argument.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp.php

The south land is mentioned. That made me laugh.

There you go with the cookware analogy again. Good thing that thinking has been rejected again. Not that rejection will ever make you wingers go away, or stop ranting and raving about abnormal social norms.

There you go with the cookware analogy again. Good thing that thinking has been rejected again. Not that rejection will ever make you wingers go away, or stop ranting and raving about abnormal social norms.I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that is a completely ridiculous, senseless statement that makes not one ounce of sense.

And you think we're arrogant? Wow. Hello, Mr. Kettle.

Your 2019 GDP was about 1.4 tril. Ours was over 20 tril. You are 1/10th of our population, but much less than 1/10th of our GDP. So if you had our population, you would trail us by over 6 trillion dollars. So much for that argument.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp.php

The south land is mentioned. That made me laugh.

Let us put it in perspective, you have 15 times our population and it took you 250 years to grow your economy to where it is today where as we have grown to where we are in 120 years so your reading of statistics is selective. at best


Joshua 15:19 (https://bibleapps.com/joshua/15-19.htm) And she said, Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the nether springs. (See JPS)Judges 1:15 (https://bibleapps.com/judges/1-15.htm) And she said unto him, Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs. (See JPS)Isaiah 21:1 (https://bibleapps.com/isaiah/21-1.htm) The burden of the wilderness of the sea. As whirlwinds in the South sweeping on, it cometh from the wilderness, from a dreadful land. (See NIV)Ezekiel 20:46 (https://bibleapps.com/ezekiel/20-46.htm) Son of man, set thy face the way of Teman, and prophesy unto the south, and prophesy unto the forest of the field -- the south; (See NIV)

You are smaller than I thought. At any rate, the ratio is more like 13 to 1, which makes your per capita GDP still smaller than ours. Your mentioning of years is irrelevant. Have you had to lead the free world in two great world wars just in the past one hundred years? Didn't think so.

Child labor laws are reforms of capitalism ;not socialism

When child labor was being denounced by the day's liberals, the factory and mine owners, capitalists all, were screaming bloody murder when threatened by losing their minimally paid 5-year-old workers, working 10-12 hours a day for a pittance. They gave reasons rooted in the Bible for employing children.

From 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement (https://www.history.com/tags/progressive-era) of this period. But many southern states resisted, leading to the decision to work for a federal child labor law. While Congress passed such laws in 1916 and 1918, the Supreme Court (https://www.history.com/topics/supreme-court-facts) declared them unconstitutional

The factory and mine owners and other supporters of child labor sought a constitutional amendment authorizing federal child labor legislation and it passed in 1924, in the the CONSERVATIVE political climate of the 1920s.

Factory owners preferred hiring children because they were cheaper, less likely to strike, and more manageable than adults. However, factory work was grueling; a child working in a factory worked 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, for only one dollar. Many children began working as young as 7, tending machines in spinning mills or carrying heavy loads.

Finally, FDR's New Deal put an end to the abuse - NOT Capitalists.


Military spending is defined in the constitution ;a mandated government service to provide for the common defense

As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to.


Licensing drivers is a state issue ;but no that is not socialism

It fits your definition of government ruling individual citizens.


Social Security ...... The government runs the Social Security system. It tracks Social Security earnings and benefits, approves or denies retirement benefit applications, collects taxes and distributes benefits . Social security is socialism and I do not like the ponzi scheme at all .

Yes, we know all that. You don't like it but the fact remains it has been the chief method to avoid poverty and sickness in old age. Government pensions are now world-wide in the industrial world doing an enormous amount of good but to you, it's just a Ponzi scheme.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that is a completely ridiculous, senseless statement that makes not one ounce of sense.

You didn't hurt my feelings at all. I expect things to be beyond your range of comprehension on most things. You never fail to reinforce that fact. I suppose that's why you have to tell folks how great you are and they should follow your lead for their own good. You handle rejection well though, as no matter how many times you get rejected you never waver from your own ideology, and that's not a compliment mind you, but an acceptance of the facts.

Make no mistake you are roundly rejected though AGAIN. Make better sense now? No matter, just keep going round and round hollering the sky is falling, and only you can fix it.

Blah, blah, blah. If you ever have anything sensible and meaningful to say, let me know. "Oh, you're rejected. Oh, you have no comprehension. Oh, that's not a compliment. Oh, it's like selling cookware. Oh, the sky is falling." Good grief. It sounds like a children's story.

You are a child you maroon. You aren't here to discuss or exchange ideas. You're here to chunk rocks and be sneaky about it. Homey ain't playing that. You got rocks in your hand, chunk 'em. I got rocks and I am going to chunk 'em at you so lets stop pretending and chunk some rocks.

yes let's all go and rock jl's roof, I've been doing it all morning with little effect


You are smaller than I thought. At any rate, the ratio is more like 13 to 1, which makes your per capita GDP still smaller than ours. Your mentioning of years is irrelevant. Have you had to lead the free world in two great world wars just in the past one hundred years? Didn't think so.

How little you know of history we were in both wars long before you and were the terror of the Germans. You say you led the free world in both wars, in fact you were a reluctant participant and were only dragged kicking and screaming into them when attacked and you had to abandon your precious neutrality, you are being precious JL, so that is how I will refer to you in future "the precious"

Hello Clete. Don't aim for the roof, go for between the eyes.

You are a child you maroon. You aren't here to discuss or exchange ideas. You're here to chunk rocks and be sneaky about it. Homey ain't playing that. You got rocks in your hand, chunk 'em. I got rocks and I am going to chunk 'em at you so lets stop pretending and chunk some rocks.So is this chapter two of the children's story? You might have a real talent there! However, "Homey ain't playing that," doesn't even fit into a children's narrative. But you did give me a good laugh, and for that I thank you. That'll be a keeper for a long time. The more I think of it, the funnier it gets. "Homey ain't playing that while he chucks those rocks." "Homey wants to discuss his ideas!" "Homey really thinks someone else is being childish." It's hilarious. Really now. Homey???

we were in both wars long before you and were the terror of the Germans.Yep. Just the sight of those 14 Aussie soldiers practically ended the war right on the spot. What part of "leading" do you have trouble understanding? In what way have you guys "led the world" in the past century?

To be sure, I have respect for Australia and even admire your country. However, when you make these kind of absurd remarks, it doesn't help your cause. "with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess." Don't be guilty of over reach.

How precious, but then you are precious, savagely defending the reluctance of your nation to defend freedom because the truth is something you have not been taught. We lost thousands in WWI and in WWII while you sat at home dithering and growing rich but we did have some successes but you would not have been taught about them because, afterall, they were not american victories.

My own grandfather was lost at Ypres and you dare to sully his memory and his valour and denigrate his contribution
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/first-world-war#:~:text=Australia%E2%80%99s%20involvement%20in %20the%20First%20World%20War%20began,an%20election %20campaign%2C%20pledged%20full%20support%20for%20 Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II# :~:text=not%20present%20%20%20Allies%20%20%20Allie d,prisoners%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20Ge%20... %20

When child labor was being denounced by the day's liberals, the factory and mine owners, capitalists all, were screaming bloody murder when threatened by losing their minimally paid 5-year-old workers, working 10-12 hours a day for a pittance. They gave reasons rooted in the Bible for employing children.

From 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement (https://www.history.com/tags/progressive-era) of this period. But many southern states resisted, leading to the decision to work for a federal child labor law. While Congress passed such laws in 1916 and 1918, the Supreme Court (https://www.history.com/topics/supreme-court-facts) declared them unconstitutional

The factory and mine owners and other supporters of child labor sought a constitutional amendment authorizing federal child labor legislation and it passed in 1924, in the the CONSERVATIVE political climate of the 1920s.

Factory owners preferred hiring children because they were cheaper, less likely to strike, and more manageable than adults. However, factory work was grueling; a child working in a factory worked 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, for only one dollar. Many children began working as young as 7, tending machines in spinning mills or carrying heavy loads.

Finally, FDR's New Deal put an end to the abuse - NOT Capitalists.


Military spending is defined in the constitution ;a mandated government service to provide for the common defense


As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to.


Licensing drivers is a state issue ;but no that is not socialism


It fits your definition of government ruling individual citizens.


Social Security ...... The government runs the Social Security system. It tracks Social Security earnings and benefits, approves or denies retirement benefit applications, collects taxes and distributes benefits . Social security is socialism and I do not like the ponzi scheme at all .


Yes, we know all that. You don't like it but the fact remains it has been the chief method to avoid poverty and sickness in old age. Government pensions are now world-wide in the industrial world doing an enormous amount of good but to you, it's just a Ponzi scheme.

Child labor laws ....neither the worker nor the government owns the means of production. No form of capitalism except perhaps extreme laissez faire objects to some form of government regulation.


As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to. I don't object to constitutionally mandated spending .The Constitution empowers Congress to raise armed forces and for the President to be CIC.

Licenses . I stand by what I wrote. There is no right to drive .

Social Security is definitely a ponzi scheme.

a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in.

Put that aside . I have paid in much more individually than the 2 wage couple paid in from the example. But if I had worked my life and saved what the SS tax collected ,I would've gotten a much bigger return for my buck than what SS pays out . But the ponzi scheme is close to being realized. As more of us geezer boomers retire ;there are less workers paying in to support the system . It will in fact go bankrupt unless higher levels of payroll taxes are levied on the young workers ;or if the benefits paid out are cut ;or if the government really breaks it's promise and makes the whole system just another means tested welfare program.

savagely defending the reluctance of your nation to defend freedom because the truth is something you have not been taught. We lost thousands in WWI and in WWII while you sat at home dithering and growing rich but we did have some successes but you would not have been taught about them because, afterall, they were not american victories.Wow. I'm "savagely defending" my nation? I'm really impressed with myself! So again, at what time has Australia ever led the world in anything?

As to us supposedly sitting home, you need to make up your mind. If we don't go to war, you get upset. If we do go to war, you get upset. I get the impression that you just like getting upset.




My own grandfather was lost at Ypres and you dare to sully his memory and his valour and denigrate his contributionI'm not sullying anything, nor am I mocking Australia's military contributions. I'm enjoying myself a great deal by making fun of your constant tendency to greatly overstate and wildly exaggerate anything Australia does and then denigrate anything we have done. It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

So is this chapter two of the children's story? You might have a real talent there! However, "Homey ain't playing that," doesn't even fit into a children's narrative. But you did give me a good laugh, and for that I thank you. That'll be a keeper for a long time. The more I think of it, the funnier it gets. "Homey ain't playing that while he chucks those rocks." "Homey wants to discuss his ideas!" "Homey really thinks someone else is being childish." It's hilarious. Really now. Homey???

Glad you're amused because I see you hiding in the weeds with a rock behind your back! Doesn't change the fact you have no clue what you're talking about and just spew the right wing hate points. You don't want a discussion you just want a platform to tear down everything you disagree with.

That's cool, I got rocks too!

Glad you're amused because I see you hiding in the weeds with a rock behind your back! Doesn't change the fact you have no clue what you're talking about and just spew the right wing hate points. You don't want a discussion you just want a platform to tear down everything you disagree with. Thank you for that very high level, content-free response.

Written at the start of the pandemic.

Column: Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. Companies and lawmakers are suddenly realizing the value of a strong social safety net. - Chicago Tribune (https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-nyt-farhad-manjoo-pandemic-column-20200311-jzsvjv22jfg2fmlcjfiu6dekmq-story.html)

I'm not a socialist and never will be. It is in difficult times that a commitment to personal liberty gets tested and tried.

I read this first paragraph and gave up on it. "All it took was a global epidemic of potentially unprecedented scale and severity and suddenly it’s like we’re turning into Denmark over here." That's as dumb as anything I've read in a long time. You only have to go back a hundred years to the Spanish flu to see how silly that is. It was just fear-mongering.

I understand that in a time of national crisis like this, we will have to employ some measures that are not what we usually do. The key is to limit that as much as possible, always remembering that practically everyone in government wants to expand government power because it expands THEIR power. That, to me, is the great danger.

Yeah, I guess it's too much to ask or expect our elected officials to use those citizen given powers for citizens. Kind of fascinating to think how broke we are for people stuff but the politicians are rolling in dough for election campaigns, especially during a crisis. No hypocrisy there is it, but we the people allow it so they do it.

I disagree that these difficult times tests our freedoms though. It's our humanity and values being tested for sure as the article link attests.


The virus has laid bare our greatest vulnerability: We’ve got the world’s biggest economy and the world’s strongest military, but it turns out we might have built the entire edifice upon layers and layers of unaccounted-for risk, because we forgot to assign a value to the true measure of a nation’s success — the well-being of its population...Because the virus is coldly indiscriminate and nearly inescapable, it leaves us all, rich and poor, in the same boat: The only way any of us is truly protected is if the least among us is protected...So what if we used this illness as an excuse to really, permanently protect the least among us?...I would like to imagine this bright future. But I’ll confess I’m not optimistic. More than a decade ago, America stumbled through the Great Recession without imposing many significant fixes for the excesses of our financial system. The titans of Wall Street were protected and working people were left with scraps. The coronavirus might teach us all to value a robust safety net — but there’s a good chance we’ll forget the lesson, because this is America, and forgetting working people is just what we do.


Be a shame to keep squandering the opportunity to be better than sickness and death over a subjective definition of a label. I guess we aren't as great as we think we are and need to quit tripping over our own egos.

You don't have to be a socialist to do that...you can be a Christian if you prefer the label...or just an American citizen, which should be label enough don't you think? How about just be a good human and practice what you preach and not settle for the bones, and scraps those elected officials feed you. That's the road to mediocracy you seem intent on traveling because that's what you seem to have been fed by this dufus.

The rest of us demand more so we booted his a$$. We learned from our mistake of letting him in the door by our own inaction in the first place.

I'll boot Joe too if demands are not met...if you guys hav presented a better plan!

the politicians are rolling in dough for election campaigns, especially during a crisis. No hypocrisy there is it, but we the people allow it so they do it.That's a valid point other than pols don't use tax funds for that purpose. Elections are funded privately and voluntarily.


You don't have to be a socialist to do that...you can be a Christian if you prefer the label...or just an American citizen, which should be label enough don't you think?Being a good socialist is far removed from being a good Christian.

Being a good human doesn't mean I follow the idea that I care so much for poor people that I am willing to make someone else give them money. It means I pitch in help them myself, as my wife and I have done for several decades now. That's where your vision and my vision absolutely part ways. You seem to want someone else to do the helping so you can then take the credit.

You demand more? That's a scary thought.

Written at the start of the pandemic.

Column: Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. Companies and lawmakers are suddenly realizing the value of a strong social safety net. - Chicago Tribune (https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-nyt-farhad-manjoo-pandemic-column-20200311-jzsvjv22jfg2fmlcjfiu6dekmq-story.html)

yes when the jackboots of the government come down on you for trying to operate your business and keep your employees working then if you don't rent seek you go out of business or become a law breaker .

He set himself up as an autonomous zone because he knows the libs like to do things like set up autonomous zones when protesting .Some autonomous zones ;or occupy zones stay in place for weeks . But only the woke protesters get that protection .

Mac's Public House that declared itself 'autonomous zone' shut down, general manager arrested - ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com) (https://abc7ny.com/staten-island-bar-autonomous-zone-shuts-down-restaurant/8425537/)

So yeah ;when the government compels you to act like a socialist then what choice do you have ?

Being a good human doesn't mean I follow the idea that I care so much for poor people that I am willing to make someone else give them money. It means I pitch in help them myself, as my wife and I have done for several decades now. That's where your vision and my vision absolutely part ways. You seem to want someone else to do the helping so you can then take the credit.
Do both. Pay taxes to help and donate to various charities to help.

Do both. Pay taxes to help and donate to various charities to help.Donating to charities preserves liberty since it is voluntary. Paying taxes decreases liberty since it is compulsory and is often based on someone else's corrupt view of morality. Besides, the feds have no Constitutional authority to take money from one American to give to another.

Donating to charities preserves liberty since it is voluntary. Paying taxes decreases liberty since it is compulsory and is often based on someone else's corrupt view of morality. Besides, the feds have no Constitutional authority to take money from one American to give to another.
So you don't want road and bridges? We pay taxes to improve life in the US.

Roads and bridges are not charitable causes. We are talking about welfare programs. There is Constitutional authority, incidentally, for roads and bridges. It is certainly not taking money from one American to give to another American.

"The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress 'power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,' is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism, as is the Constitution's preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice."

If you needed financial help for an extended period of time, what would you do, JL?

Roads and bridges are not charitable causes. We are talking about welfare programs. There is Constitutional authority, incidentally, for roads and bridges. It is certainly not taking money from one American to give to another American.

You know you're a loony winger when you rather people go cold hungry and homeless especially in a crisis through no fault of their own.

If you needed financial help for an extended period of time, what would you do, JL?Now that's a great question. I have four options.

1 I could go to your house and rob you, but that might land me in jail.
2. I could vote for liberal dems who would go to your house for me, take your money in taxes, and give it to me in return for my undying loyalty in voting for them. Same thing as #1, but rather strangely, no one goes to jail.
3. I could depend upon friends and family. Better than the first two, but not always reliable.
4. I could be a grown up, realize that such things happen, and prepare ahead of time for such hardships. It's far and away the best course and is referred to as self reliance. It's what our country was built upon.


As to your general welfare clause, look up the definition of "general" as opposed to "individual". Then find out how many years of our history we managed to make it through with no federal payouts to individuals at all. Learn.

4. I could be a grown up, realize that such things happen, and prepare ahead of time for such hardships. It's far and away the best course and is referred to as self reliance. It's what our country was built upon.
And if your physical or mental health has always been a problem plus no vocational or college education, and, as a result, you've had low-paying jobs all your life so far, how can you "prepare ahead of time"?

Then you appeal to charity. It generally works quite well, but you still have no right to another American's money.

spirious argument, you have a right to government money because it is distributed by law, a law voted and approved.

We've had this discussion before. Rather than going to your house and robbing you, I instead vote for liberal dem pols who do the job for me in exchange for my undying voter support. There is really no difference. It's just done under the guise of "law".

Then you appeal to charity. It generally works quite well, but you still have no right to another American's money.
Charity money is "another American's money." Yes, voluntary but usually charity donations from others who have been in or very possibly will be in the same boat in the future -- not so much from the wealthy.

Yes, voluntaryYou kind of ran right past that very vital distinction. It makes all the difference in the world to those who love liberty.


not so much from the wealthy.How do you know that?

You kind of ran right past that very vital distinction. It makes all the difference in the world to those who love liberty.

How do you know that?

you are being prescious again

If you want to use the word precious, then at least have enough sense to learn how to spell it.

Or perhaps "prescious" in Aussie land means "reasonable and correct"? That would certainly be appropriate. I think I can go with that one!!

You kind of ran right past that very vital distinction. It makes all the difference in the world to those who love liberty.

I pay taxes and would do it voluntarily, knowing all the wonderful efforts my taxes support and pay for.

How do you know that?
For thirty years in Libraryland, I met and chatted with many wealthy library patrons who usually held their nose when they talked about poor people.

If you want to use the word precious, then at least have enough sense to learn how to spell it.

Or perhaps "prescious" in Aussie land means "reasonable and correct"? That would certainly be appropriate. I think I can go with that one!! what it means here is being a dlckhead

I pay taxes and would do it voluntarily, knowing all the wonderful efforts my taxes support and pay for.The usual liberal claptrap. If you love paying taxes so much, have you ever paid MORE than was asked, or called for a tax increase for YOU, or voted for a pol that promised to raised taxes on YOU? I didn't think so.


For thirty years in Libraryland, I met and chatted with many wealthy library patrons who usually held their nose when they talked about poor people.Rather than post such an absurdly empty reply, why not just admit you have no evidence whatsoever? Wouldn't that be better than looking so silly?

The usual liberal claptrap. If you love paying taxes so much, have you ever paid MORE than was asked, or called for a tax increase for YOU, or voted for a pol that promised to raised taxes on YOU? I didn't think so.

Yep, just did on November 3rd.

In what way? I'll tell you even before your answer that I kind of doubt it.

general welfare clause . What did the framers mean by it ? What it meant according to Madison(whose portrait is my avatar here ) was that Congress was authorized to spend money on the general welfare BUT ONLY in relationship to the other spending authorities enumerated in art 1 sec 8 . Hamilton thought it gave Congress a carte blanche .That dispute has raged on ever since .

What both framers agreed was that the legislative power for the general welfare resided in the 10th amendment powers of the states.
There has not been any law upheld by SCOTUS on the grounds of the General Welfare clause .

Here's the deal . IF the framers wanted an unlimited government then they would not have gone through the efforts of specifically defining what Congress may spend money on. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

Even Hamilton conceded in Federalist 83."This specification of particulars enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.".

Madison was more emphatic in Federalist 41

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? "

Madison also wrote ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.

As far as intent goes . Madison was the correct one .


provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,

The truth is that the clause was never meant to be dissected and bisected . The key words are General and Common .The clause means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for sectional or special interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism. It certainly was never meant as green light to play Robin Hood .

yes when the jackboots of the government come down on you for trying to operate your business and keep your employees working then if you don't rent seek you go out of business or become a law breaker .

He set himself up as an autonomous zone because he knows the libs like to do things like set up autonomous zones when protesting .Some autonomous zones ;or occupy zones stay in place for weeks . But only the woke protesters get that protection .

Mac's Public House that declared itself 'autonomous zone' shut down, general manager arrested - ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com) (https://abc7ny.com/staten-island-bar-autonomous-zone-shuts-down-restaurant/8425537/)

So yeah ;when the government compels you to act like a socialist then what choice do you have ?

He's luckier than most that encounter the jackboots of government. If they don't shoot 'em 41 times, they just choke 'em out.

The truth is that the clause was never meant to be dissected and bisected . The key words are General and Common .The clause means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for sectional or special interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism. It certainly was never meant as green light to play Robin Hood .Exactly correct.

In what way? I'll tell you even before your answer that I kind of doubt it.
You don't think I do any research, do you. You think I'm just another witless female, don't you.

You don't think I do any research, do you.Your record is that you do very little.


You think I'm just another witless female, don't you.Another? No. But here's your chance to prove your "wit". Answer the question. In what way?

Your record is that you do very little.
You refuse to accept ANY of my responses, no matter what. I think I'll change my AMHD user name to Wally or Jimmy.

Another? No. But here's your chance to prove your "wit". Answer the question. In what way?
Apparently you don't have a dictionary.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"Wit" was a play off of "witless". One way or the other, you passed on it as you usually do.

Why do wingers always beetch about po folks taking money while you give guy rolling in dough even mo' money? If you didn't rig the system you wouldn't have po' people to give money to in the first place.

Why do wingers always beetch about po folks taking money while you give guy rolling in dough even mo' money? If you didn't rig the system you wouldn't have po' people to give money to in the first place.
great point tal, but jl revels in the rigged system because it advantages him over those poor people. he is, afterall, that legendary bird and very precious

Prescious!! Pay attention!

Why do wingers always beetch about po folks taking money while you give guy rolling in dough even mo' money? If you didn't rig the system you wouldn't have po' people to give money to in the first place.

Jesus had a word for those who placed money over human life.

Prescious!! Pay attention!

as I said precious, and you are being very precious today

as I said precious, and you are being very precious today
Actually, he seems to be prescient at times.

Nah. It's prescious. You have to remember the Aussie spelling of the word that means, "right and correct in his arguments". Well, poor Clete. He got blown up on his silly assertion about the superior state of the Aussie economy, and it just eats at him. But as they say, become better, or become bitter.


Actually, he seems to be prescient at times.Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."

Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."
Maybe if I compliment you now and then, you'll start to like me....

I am always for you, WG. Don't always understand you, but I always want to see you do well, and I frequently like you when you are not driving me batty. I do admire your giving heart. I have no doubt that you are genuinely concerned about the less fortunate. And I am JEALOUS of your knowledge of grammar. Believe it or not, I pray for you regularly.

I am always for you, WG. Don't always understand you, but I always want to see you do well, and I frequently like you when you are not driving me batty. I do admire your giving heart. I have no doubt that you are genuinely concerned about the less fortunate. And I am JEALOUS of your knowledge of grammar. Believe it or not, I pray for you regularly.
Wow! Thank you!

And you're ENVIOUS (not JEALOUS).... *grinning*

Nah. It's prescious. You have to remember the Aussie spelling of the word that means, "right and correct in his arguments". Well, poor Clete. He got blown up on his silly assertion about the superior state of the Aussie economy, and it just eats at him. But as they say, become better, or become bitter.

Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."

JL, I think you far from
right and correct in his arguments in most of your arguments. Where I come from being precious means clinging to an argument like a little child even when you are wrong, and your insistence that taxation is wrong is such an argument, taxation is theft, legalised theft. Yes, I do think the state of our economy is superior to yours, even though we have seen the dismantling of our manufacturing industries because of the rise of China and US investment there. You would be better served investing in your allies than with your ideological enemies. OK our economy isn't the size of yours but considering it has become a service economy it does fairly well, and you have yet to see the true impact of CV19, once Joe gets loose you are in for a recession, how's that for prescient, by the way China owns you arse

Precious here means to be of great value.


your insistence that taxation is wrong is such an argument,If I had ever made such an argument, then I would agree with you.


taxation is theft, legalised theft.That was actually not my point either. I was referring specifically to taking tax money and giving it to individuals. It is legalized theft pure and simple, and a government enforced, involuntary system of charity. Most liberal dems support it because they incessantly call upon the rich to pay it, and I despise that cowardly approach to morality and charity.


Yes, I do think the state of our economy is superior to yours,You are welcome to your opinion.


you have yet to see the true impact of CV19, once Joe gets loose you are in for a recession, how's that for prescient, by the way China owns you arseThere is certainly much there to consider. If we get by with merely a recession, it will be the blessing of God.

And you're ENVIOUS (not JEALOUS).... *grinning*Rats! You got me again. Your point is very well taken.

Precious here means to be of great value.

No it is actually derisive we always reverse the meaning when referring to individuals, sort of like sick means good


If I had ever made such an argument, then I would agree with you.

That was actually not my point either. I was referring specifically to taking tax money and giving it to individuals. It is legalized theft pure and simple, and a government enforced, involuntary system of charity. Most liberal dems support it because they incessantly call upon the rich to pay it, and I despise that cowardly approach to morality and charity.

So you are against welfare in all its forms? No unemployment, No food stamps, no healthcare, no education programs. You must be against school meals, homeless shelters, etc, what a miserable outlook


You are welcome to your opinion.

There is certainly much there to consider. If we get by with merely a recession, it will be the blessing of God.

Yes my opinion is valuable, we thought we would have a CV19 led depression but once we got on top of the virus, it was a short run recession. You see taking sensible measures proved beneficial in the long run

socialism in a nutshell ....All Out Crazy is selling 'tax the rich' sweat shirts on her web site for $58 .

Tax the Rich Sweatshirt – Official AOC Shop (ocasiocortez.com) (https://shop.ocasiocortez.com/products/tax-the-rich-sweatshirt)

I heard of a scheme once employed where there was a special tax for all those with wealth exceeding 2.5 million, this should be reintroduced

So you are against welfare in all its forms? No unemployment, No food stamps, no healthcare, no education programs. You must be against school meals, homeless shelters, etc, what a miserable outlookIn our country, unemployment is not welfare. When you work, you pay an unemployment tax that is used for that purpose. Education is certainly not welfare. As to school meals, I have no problem with feeding children.

I could probably get behind a program where everyone who works is taxed a certain amount, say 3%, that is used to fund welfare programs, which was basically the OT method of state charity. No more of this fake charity where people advocate taxing the wealthy to pay for it. If it's important, then let's all get behind it. But the spending would be limited to whatever that tax brings in. That way, no pol party could claim they had this fake concern for the poor, the kind that says, "We care so much for poor people that we are willing to force other people to take care of them." That's one of the most nauseating approaches I know of and reveals those people to be the miserable, hypocritical cowards they are. That's your "miserable outlook" in my view.

OR you could make the 3% voluntary. Then we would be able to separate the sincere from the fake real easily. "Did you check the box and pay your fed charity tax?"

And before anyone starts complaining that I am not in favor of charity, you need to come look at my checkbook first. My objection is to government sponsored, politically motivated "charity" that allows a bunch of liberal dems to act like they are wonderful because they force other people to pay for it.


I heard of a scheme once employed where there was a special tax for all those with wealth exceeding 2.5 million, this should be reintroducedNope. If it's worth doing, then it's worth taxing Clete, JL, WG, Tal, Tom, and everyone else for. What gives you the authority to tell other people what to do with their money, especially when you are not willing to do it yourself with yours?

I've always paid my fair share of taxes and have no problem the least and the needy are helped by it. That's the way it's supposed to be in a great nation of great wealth that reaches all across the globe. Says more about us than all the armies, boats, and planes.

Speaks louder than the endless screaming about somebody taking your money, calling names, or trying to kick someone out of the boat we're all in. It's not your boat or my boat, it's our boat!

What gives you the authority to tell other people what to do with their money, especially when you are not willing to do it yourself with yours?
We voters can tell other people what to do with their money because we ARE willing to do it with our own. As Tal so succinctly said, "It's not your boat or my boat, it's OUR boat!"

Speaks louder than the endless screaming about somebody taking your money, calling names, or trying to kick someone out of the boat we're all in. It's not your boat or my boat, it's our boat!You see me calling names, tell me about it. You see me kicking someone "out of the boat", tell me about it. Otherwise you are, shall we say, being much less than honest.


We voters can tell other people what to do with their money because we ARE willing to do it with our own. No you're not. You have never called for an increase in your own taxes. The incessant call of the liberal left is for an increase in someone else's taxes. And besides, where in law do you find the idea of you deciding that someone else has to engage in your idea of charity? Where is that?

And just like an answer to prayer, there is this. AOC. The gift that keeps on giving.

https://shop.ocasiocortez.com/products/tax-the-rich-sweatshirt

No you're not. You have never called for an increase in your own taxes.
Yes, I have, on November 3.

Sure you did.

More democrat hypocrites. London Breed, the mayor of San Fran, eight days after telling everyone to stay at home, was seen dining at one of the most highly priced restaurants in California. Steve Adler, the democrat mayor of Austin, told his servants to stay at home, but he filmed that after flying to a beach resort in Mexico for a stay in a condo. I'm sure that all of the people on this board who have been so concerned with Trump's supposed hypocrisy will join with me in condemning this.

Now the latest from the math genius who is pres elect. He warned us that we will have a quarter of a million die from COVID in December if we did not do as he says. That would require 8 thousand dead a day. At no time have we even approached HALF of that figure, but JB wants us to listen to him! Come on, man!

Sure you did.
Matthew 8:26a

Sure you did.

socialism in a nutshell ....All Out Crazy is selling 'tax the rich' sweat shirts on her web site for $58 .


That's called free enterprise, tomder. I thought you supported that.

I guess you meant "capitalism in a nutshell".

You anti-socialist boys are still confused about what the words mean.

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well?

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

Sorry, tomder - lame excuse. You flubbed it.

If you would spend a little effort on research as you do for your pet projects, you would discover "democratic socialism" is not the socialism you think of. Your AOC post is such an instructive comment in how you confuse socialism with excessive capitalism. It couldn't be any clearer.

It's a bit like calling the Nazis socialists because the word Socialism was in their name. Nobody was further from socialism than Hitler's gang. But this revisionism works for the far right since truth is not their forte. Any nonsense or bizarre conspiracy theory will do as long as it serves their purpose.

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

So part of the labelling is a reference to the dictator/leader that applies it. A marketing ploy to brand the individual and rally the troops. SPIN to push an agenda.

Of course, propaganda is powerful as you witnessed for the last four years, this time it took a different form but Trump relied heavily on propaganda. Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensus despite what JL says


58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well? No, enterpreneurship but very much out of character. Fashion always has a high markup

Sort of like the dufus charity, the dufus university, and the dufus ties.

or dufus hats

Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensusYou do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

Tomder, this is so ridiculous, it's impossible to know where to start. By the time the party name was gaining adherents, it stayed with "socialist" in its name. But Hitler hated socialists and communists. Hitler's ideology, which was very confused, was based on nothing but race. Socialism is based on class. The two couldn't be further apart.

For oddball reasons, the modern-day right has seized on the NAZI name to claim Hitler was a socialist. I can expect that of illiterates, but not you, tom. The name of the party preceded Hitler by several years. You really should know better.

You do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

You really must curb your wish to correct everyone you cannot have socialism without a social consensus. Yes you do live in a tyranny, a tyranny of taxation and for 250 years you have railed against taxation whatever the reason it is imposed. It is the spirit of your nation to be so opposed. Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good. If people were left without means there would be anarchy

Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good.It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well

what would you like a march past or a medal. What I say to you buddy, is up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptions

up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptionsNah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

Your masterplan probably works well for you in your rural small town setting, but may need some tweaking and adjustments to accommodate the huge sprawling big city settings of urban centers with greater populations that a more industrialized, and diverse population, and working on the clock of continuous operations.

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.Not real sure what you're talking about.

Have you figured it out yet?

Nah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

There you go making assumptions again. I have never said that anyone should be under compulsion to look after the poor or anyone else for that matter. You cannot have the common good without the ability to contribute and politicians are elected to implement policies. Also you cannot say charity is an obligations and then lament the practicalities that public charity is insufficient. I was not impressed when my government implemented the form of health care we have but many decades later I see the practicality of it. I was not impressed when my government implemented the bottomless pit of the NDIS but I do see the practicality of it. I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847858&page=5&p=3861628#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

Private charity is a feint by those who want to pay less in taxes. They know charity is not nearly enough. All the suffering and sickness described above is secondary to the love of money, their true motivation and shamelessly promoted on these pages.

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847858&page=5&p=3861628#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

You mean folks like this should get off their duffs and get a job? I think they had one until they didn't.

Jobless claims: Another 712,000 Americans filed new unemployment claims last week (yahoo.com) (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/initial-jobless-claims-week-ended-nov-28-2020-coronavirus-pandemic-164849870.html)

The 25 points of the Nazi charter ;cowritten by Hitler is chock full of socialism .
It calls for equality of rights for Germans . It calls for the subjugation of the people to the state ;confiscation of wealth ,and land ,the nationalization of industry ,profit sharing for the worker , extension of old age welfare ,duty of the individual to the state ,the communalization of the great warehouses and those being leased at low costs to small firms, nationalizing education; regulation of the press,

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program)

For oddball reasons, the modern-day right has seized on the NAZI name to claim Hitler was a socialist. I can expect that of illiterates, but not you, tom. The name of the party preceded Hitler by several years. You really should know better.



Actually I first read that when I read Hayek's 1944 book 'The Road to Serfdom' . So no it is not some alternate history . It is a fact . Hayek described Nazism as a “genuine socialist movement” . National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement .The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, (volk) and invoked state based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation based socialism.

Yeah I get it ,European Socialists of the 1940s were embarrassed about what their movement had wrought .Not surprisingly they were not so embarrassed by Stalin's version even though Stalin exterminated many more people than Hitler ever dreamed of . So they concocted this false narrative that Nazis were some off shoot of capitalism . That is the narrative that is ridiculous .

This is an unusual situation, especially considering that much of the economic damage being done is at the direction of brainless pols who really believe that we can just shut down vast areas of businesses and leave these people with no jobs. It's insane.

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847858&page=5&p=3861628#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

perfect liberty doesn't exist, if you want to defend it it comes at a cost. If you don't support those without support society will degenerate into anarchy. Unfortunately the only way to make sure everyone contributes short of robbery is taxation and while I consider taxation is theft it is a necessary evil to ensure an ordered society particularly in these times when people are unemployed or destitute through no fault of their own but never the less those like you will cling to their money in the name of liberty just as they cling to their guns

perfect liberty doesn't exist,Nothing perfect exists on this earth. That's no excuse to ignore liberty.


Unfortunately the only way to make sure everyone contributes short of robbery is taxation and while I consider taxation is theft it is a necessary evil to ensure an ordered society particularly in these times when people are unemployed or destitute through no fault of their own but never the less those like you will cling to their money in the name of liberty just as they cling to their gunsBut everyone does not contribute, and there is no desire whatsoever amongst liberals for everyone to contribute. The battle cry is always for the wealthy to pay their fair share, which is absolute nonsense. Tax the rich! How does that ensure that "everyone" pays?

For those who are sound of mind and body, you usually do them no favors by passing out money. That's how we find ourselves in the insane situation of having college students who expect the taxpayers to pay off their loans. And if you really want everyone to contribute, then why did you limit your suggestion to only those making more than 2.5 mil?

But everyone does not contribute, and there is no desire whatsoever amongst liberals for everyone to contribute. The battle cry is always for the wealthy to pay their fair share, which is absolute nonsense. Tax the rich! How does that ensure that "everyone" pays?

Illinois struggled with this -- a flat income tax or a graduated income tax.

Which state in America hands out welfare benefits or free money without work requirements? Which state does that for life?

More hardcore right wing BS!

from those who can to those who can't, I know you don't like the concept but who but the rich have the ability to contribute to support the society that made them rich. You rail against the taxation of the rich but the poor are made poorer by taxation

I know you don't like the concept but who but the rich have the ability to contribute to support the society that made them rich. You rail against the taxation of the rich but the poor are made poorer by taxationAll taxation makes everyone poorer. I don't rail against the taxation of the rich. I oppose the forced charity imposed upon others by people like you who say you want everyone to contribute until the truth finally comes out. I find that people like you are all in favor of raised taxes so long as it is do ne to someone else. It is why I say repeatedly that I never meet the person who is in favor of raising taxes on him/her self in order to help the poor. It always comes down to, "Vote for So and So, because he will raise taxes on the rich to give goodies to you!" It is sickening to me.

Plainly you are free to believe what you will, and I don't intend to sound harsh. You want to tax the wealthy to pay for the poor, and do so against their will. You feel that is justifiable. I question it greatly. I guess that's where it stands. I do have some sympathy for the idea of using some tax revenues to help those who genuinely need it, but at present it is being used to encourage out of wedlock births by basically making husbands/fathers nothing more than a option, and to encourage people not to work.

The 25 points of the Nazi charter ;cowritten by Hitler is chock full of socialism .
It calls for equality of rights for Germans . It calls for the subjugation of the people to the state ;confiscation of wealth ,and land ,the nationalization of industry ,profit sharing for the worker , extension of old age welfare ,duty of the individual to the state ,the communalization of the great warehouses and those being leased at low costs to small firms, nationalizing education; regulation of the press,

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program)


Tom, you've been hoodwinked by the alt-right. The following is from the very link you provided.

Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Dietrich_Bracher) writes that,


To [Hitler, the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation, for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory, against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#cite_note-12)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#cite_note-12)Like Hitler, Trump offers an effective, persuasive speech at his rallies to manipulate the masses. His lies are pure decoration, yet his pseudo-theory attracts nearly half the population in thrall to him. The wannabee future dictator came close to toppling this country and destroying its democracy.

Like an insane man, Trump continues his mad screed of screaming that he was robbed and that the election was rigged. The world watches in absolute astonishment.


In the end, decency and goodness won.

All taxation makes everyone poorer. I don't rail against the taxation of the rich. I oppose the forced charity imposed upon others by people like you who say you want everyone to contribute until the truth finally comes out. I find that people like you are all in favor of raised taxes so long as it is do ne to someone else.

It is sickening to me.

I am not in favour of taxation per see and I have said many times I consider taxation is theft so your continual characterisation of me as a person who favours raising taxation is plainly wrong and an excuse to once again sing your favourite song and dance the dance of raining on the poor saying they are not entitled to support. Charity is plainly inadequate to provide for those who have little and if the rich and super rich are coerced to contribute more of what is a super abundance I see they are unharmed by it

First you say you are, "not in favour of taxation per se," and that my characterization of you as a person who favors raising taxes is "plainly wrong". But you conclude by saying, " and if the rich and super rich are coerced to contribute more of what is a super abundance I see they are unharmed by it." Well, you can't have it both ways. My characterization of you seems to be exactly correct. You don't want your taxes raised, but you do want to raise taxes on others, so you're all for charity as long as it doesn't cost you anything. You are advocating for the exact kind of painless charity that others on this board advocate for. "Let the rich pay for it!" It's the song and dance of the Biden supporters. "Vote for Biden and he'll pay off your student loans." It's the same something for nothing idea that they've been selling for years now.

The problem with the idea is that it all comes down to government confiscation of another person's property, and all on the idea that someone else has decided they really don't need to have it. Well I would suggest to you that both of us likewise have property that we really don't need. Should the government come and take that as well? If they can do it to the wealthy, then why not to you? And compared to most of the rest of the world, aren't you similarly "super rich"?

You do realize that you voted for the dufus for your own reason so why can't others have their own reasons for their vote like you did? Seems a bit self righteous, but the fact is whatever the reasons you seem to have been outvoted this time.

Bummer ain't it?

The problem with the idea is that it all comes down to government confiscation of another person's property, and all on the idea that someone else has decided they really don't need to have it.
Like eminent domain at the southern border....federal government jerking ranchers' property out of their grip in order to build a useless wall.

You do realize that you voted for the dufus for your own reason so why can't others have their own reasons for their vote like you did?No one is questioning that.


Like eminent domain at the southern border....federal government jerking ranchers' property out of their grip in order to build a useless wall.Are you also opposed to eminent domain being used to build highways?

Are you also opposed to eminent domain being used to build highways?
What if it's your property they want to build an interstate through?

You did not answer the question. That is very common for you, but I'll step up and answer yours anyway.

It does change things when it becomes personnel. To make a comparison, I am all in favor of the police arresting criminals unless, of course, I'm the criminal. Now in my case, I have actually had to deal with the state buying some of our land to build a highway on. They paid us very well, and we used a good bit of that to send our two kids through college when, before that, we had no really good idea of how we would do that. But that is not the case with everyone, and I understand that, but I don't know how you can have a modern country without eminent domain. So to be critical of Trump using eminent domain to build some of the southern wall, but then not be willing to simply express an opinion on the general use of eminent domain just strikes me as pretty lame.

You did not answer the question.
Neither did you.

I just answered the question. Look above.

So it's okay for the government to take your land and money to build a wall, but feeding and sheltering the least is out of the question?

You did not answer the question. That is very common for you, but I'll step up and answer yours anyway.
Always the nasty comment.... *sigh*

It does change things when it becomes personnel.
At least I can spell. (Am returning the "compliment")

The federal government isn't taking any care toward its citizens and the environment in how it's using the eminent domain power. Private property, state lands, wildlife preserves -- all are fodder for Trump's gristmill he calls a wall.

From https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2020/12/trumps-wall-absolutely-devastating-for-people-and-wildlife/ --
The project is part of the administration’s ongoing effort to install at least 450 miles of new and replacement barrier along the 2,000-mile southern border before Trump leaves office, much of it on protected public lands. The result, according to Indigenous communities and environmental advocates, has been ecological and cultural destruction on a shocking scale. “This new construction has bulldozed a huge amount of desert habitat, blasted rugged mountains, destroyed cultural sites,” says Laiken Jordahl, a campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s absolutely devastating.”

Always the nasty comment.... *sigh*Truth can kind of sting, can't it? You have, in fact, still not answered it. Sigh. You see a potential trap coming that will not work for your argument, so you just avoid it. Yep. It's pretty lame.


The federal government isn't taking any care toward its citizens and the environment in how it's using the eminent domain power. Private property, state lands, wildlife preserves -- all are fodder for Trump's gristmill he calls a wall.

I know. It's terrible if Trump does it. TDS on display.


ecological and cultural destruction on a shocking scale.This is according to indigenous communities and environmental whackos? Go figure.

Says the hardcore right wing wacko. Pot? Kettle? Makes no difference...pick one!

more like a camp oven eh?

Says the hardcore right wing wacko.What did I say that you disagreed with? Ever notice how often you leave out the essential?

You know what I disagree with...why you playing? Pick any post, doesn't matter especially you're response to this one,


So it's okay for the government to take your land and money to build a wall, but feeding and sheltering the least is out of the question?

You got proof you're NOT a wacko?

You know what I disagree with...why you playing? Pick any post, doesn't matter especially you're response to this one,In other words, you don't have the slightest idea. As to feeding and sheltering the least, when you are actually doing something yourself, then get back with us. OR when you are ready to call for an increase in YOUR taxes, then you will sound like something more substantial than the bleating of sheep.

In other words, you don't have the slightest idea. As to feeding and sheltering the least, when you are actually doing something yourself, then get back with us. OR when you are ready to call for an increase in YOUR taxes, then you will sound like something more substantial than the bleating of sheep.

That's all you got? You do know when the dufus finally leaves you have to leave with him because despite the best efforts we don't seem to be able to separate your head from the dufus's a$$.

How'd you get so far up there anyway?

I'm very concerned about this strange fascination you have with other men's rear ends. How long have you had these strange fantasies? Strikes me as kind of sick, but at any rate it's not my deal at all, so I'll leave that to you. I guess I'd think you might want to keep that obsession more of a secret, but you can barely make it a month or two without wanting to talk about it. Have you seen professional help about these fantasies??? Do you go to websites to see these images you seem to love so much? Certainly is nothing to be proud of. Very sad.

As to the rest, if you ever want to impress anyone with your concern for the poor, then get your own money involved in it. Until then, it's just hot air. It means nothing.

No guy I'm worried about where your head is stuck at.

I'm very concerned about this strange fascination you have with other men's rear ends. How long have you had these strange fantasies? Strikes me as kind of sick, but at any rate it's not my deal at all, so I'll leave that to you. I guess I'd think you might want to keep that obsession more of a secret, but you can barely make it a month or two without wanting to talk about it. Have you seen professional help about these fantasies??? Do you go to websites to see these images you seem to love so much? Certainly is nothing to be proud of. Very sad.

As to the rest, if you ever want to impress anyone with your concern for the poor, then get your own money involved in it. Until then, it's just hot air. It means nothing.

obviously never heard of don't ask, don't tell which masked such a fascination for years and as to the hot air that means nothing, it would all go away if you would just shut up

Tal, it's fine. It does seem to be either a sick humor or a sick fantasy life with you since you are the only person, literally, I have ever met in my entire life that loves to talk about it so much, or talk about it at all for that matter. It has never occurred to me in 67 years to ask another man (or woman) such a sick question, and it's really a strange, strange affair you have. Nonetheless, I do know that God loves you a great deal, so it is not for me to be harsh with you. It's puzzling, but it's your strange problem to deal with, so rant away. It means nothing.


it would all go away if you would just shut up I'm sure it would. You could all sit around and pat yourselves on the back for being so noble in your feelings about the poor that you are perfectly willing to force others to give them money. But you can forget that. Someone on this board has to point out your fake charity, and I guess it's me, so get used to it. I know it irritates you to have it pointed out, but that's your problem.

I'm sure it would. You could all sit around and pat yourselves on the back for being so noble in your feelings about the poor that you are perfectly willing to force others to give them money. But you can forget that. Someone on this board has to point out your fake charity, and I guess it's me, so get used to it. I know it irritates you to have it pointed out, but that's your problem.
You have absolutely NO idea what any of us here give for charity and how we help others, financially and otherwise, who need a boost. Please stop saying we "force others to give them money."

You have absolutely NO idea what any of us here give for charity and how we help others, financially and otherwise, who need a boost. Please stop saying we "force others to give them money."If you will stop doing it, then I'll stop saying it. It's a core belief of liberal dems and of the Harris/Biden ticket to raise taxes on the wealthy so you can "take care" of the poor by making the wealthy pay their "fair share", a notion that has been shown to be foolishly fake here many times. I know none of you have ever voted to raise your own taxes, or at least you can't name the time you did if that was the case. There is one person on this board who has flatly stated he does not want his own taxes raised. I do give you somewhat of a pass. You do at least seem to take a personal (I listened to your correction!) interest in the poor, but you insist on voting for the fake charity of raising taxes on others but not yourself.

If you will stop doing it, then I'll stop saying it.
Doing what?

I know none of you have ever voted to raise your own taxes, or at least you can't name the time you did if that was the case.
I have mentioned it (posts 95 and 126) and did vote that way on November 3.

Doing what?What you said.

You have never mentioned any specific instance where you voted to raise your own taxes. Vague references will get you nowhere.

You have never mentioned any specific instance where you voted to raise your own taxes. Vague references will get you nowhere.
Post #95 wasn't specific enough for you?

A simple date??? Hardly.

A simple date??? Hardly.
Along with #126?

(Clue from post #126: Which would raise my taxes, a flat tax or a graduated tax?)

Fraid not, and not even when you count post 1 to post 159. The point is voting to raise your own taxes. You have not given any specifics on that.

Fraid not, and not even when you count post 1 to post 159. The point is voting to raise your own taxes. You have not given any specifics on that.
You're not paying attention again.

You can spin it however you please but the factual case of the matter is your way of thinking is continually out voted. Of course that won't stop the protestations that have gone on since the New Deal by some. You are but the latest iteration of that sentiment.

As long as you are outvoted then our opinions, arguments and actual legislation is more than just hot air. Additionally if you are so fascinated by my interest of where your head is stuck at, then you must also accept how specific that my observation is limited to you and your dufus cult leader.

You are unique in that way as far as this forum is concerned.

Yeah. It's just hot air. "I care so much for the poor that I'm willing to make some other guy help them." It's the motto of the liberal dems and describes a cheap form of charity that puts the burden on someone else and yet leaves you thinking you have somehow become more noble and holier than the other guy. It's like making someone else go fight a war for you, and then deciding to walk about crowing about how brave and courageous you are.

If you care about poor people, you'll get off your axx and go help them. If you ever do, I can assure you that you'll learn a few things. If you want the feds to help them, then vote for someone who promises to raise YOUR taxes. If you ever do any of that, then you can begin to remove the "hot air" label from your forehead.


You are unique in that wayNah. No one has any interest in it but you. It's your secret fantasy.

Yeah. It's just hot air. "I care so much for the poor that I'm willing to make some other guy help them." It's the motto of the liberal dems and describes a cheap form of charity that puts the burden on someone else and yet leaves you thinking you have somehow become more noble and holier than the other guy. It's like making someone else go fight a war for you, and then deciding to walk about crowing about how brave and courageous you are.

If you care about poor people, you'll get off your axx and go help them. If you ever do, I can assure you that you'll learn a few things. If you want the feds to help them, then vote for someone who promises to raise YOUR taxes. If you ever do any of that, then you can begin to remove the "hot air" label from your forehead.

Nah. No one has any interest in it but you. It's your secret fantasy.

Nice spin in your own twisted words that have twisted the words of others with enough loony logic to evidence your maroonacy. I real don't care where you stick your head and I almost feel for the a$$ it's stuck in if not for the fact the dufus is such a big a$$hole to begin with. Just sharing an observation, and offering help with that, but if you like it I don't really care.

Maybe you can follow his a$$ out the door.

Hmm. It all makes me wonder about you and what you've been doing, but that's your business. This strange, sick obsession is weird beyond description. I'm going to abandon that discussion. Too, too weird.

cut and run as you always do

cut and run as you always doThe return of Mr. Cheerful.

Yes I'm never far away but there is so little going on here, nothing new at all

It has been pretty quiet. We can agree on that for sure.

It has been pretty quiet. We can agree on that for sure.Yes quiet in your neck of the woods but not in ours

We are sort of celebrating the end of the dufus era with the upcoming marriage of capitalism, socialism, and hopefully the birth of common sense ism with the handling of the virus.

Resistance may be futile!

Resistance is certainly futile but only if you are being assimilated by the Borg

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB186W4t.img?h=582&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1875sD.img?h=582&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1873ji.img?h=582&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=575

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1875wO.img?h=582&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB18719R.img?h=582&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f


Resistance is certainly futile but only if you are being assimilated by the Borg

Or the dufus!

TDS, pure and simple. Extreme case, in fact. I'm really worried about what you'll do when Trump is out and you have no one to hate.

I'm really worried about what you'll do when Trump is out and you have no one to hate.
Love fests, 24/7/365!!!

In the meantime, Hunter Biden has steadfastly refused to cooperate any at all with a Senate investigation of his business ties. That contrasts with the cooperation exercised by Trump's children. I'm sure the liberal dems on this site who were unceasingly critical of Trump's kids will be aghast at HB's refusal.

There is also now seems to be no doubt that JB lied when he told the American people that he had no knowledge of HB's business ties. Prepare yourselves for a backlash from the anti-lying crowd on this board. It is surely coming!!

In the meantime, Hunter Biden has steadfastly refused to cooperate any at all with a Senate investigation of his business ties. That contrasts with the cooperation exercised by Trump's children. I'm sure the liberal dems on this site who were unceasingly critical of Trump's kids will be aghast at HB's refusal.

There is also now seems to be no doubt that JB lied when he told the American people that he had no knowledge of HB's business ties. Prepare yourselves for a backlash from the anti-lying crowd on this board. It is surely coming!!

Right wing loony spin and noise. Go FACKchek yourself.

That contrasts with the cooperation exercised by Trump's children.
*cough* *gag* What about all those Chinese trademarks and trade deals Ivanka lassoed in?

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.zuOf_N-o5E5T9xiplhwT2gHaMP?w=182&h=301&c=7&o=5&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7

Right wing loony spin and noise. Go FACKchek yourself.That is usually proof positive that you know my info is correct.


*cough* *gag* What about all those Chinese trademarks and trade deals Ivanka lassoed in?What about them? Is doing business a crime now?

What about them? Is doing business a crime now?
Yes! When you're working as the U.S. president or, like Ivanka, serving as his senior advisor, it is unethical and even illegal (???) to gain financially because of your position.

Yes! When you're working as the U.S. president or, like Ivanka, serving as his senior advisor, it is unethical and even illegal (???) to gain financially because of your position.There is no law against the children of a sitting president doing business and making profits. If they used their president father to sway business in their direction, then you might have a point, but acting on their own is certainly allowable. Besides, they were investigated to the point of lunacy and charged with nothing. Let's see how HB does.

Biden's kid is being investigated again...and so is the dufus and his business practices...AGAIN...and that includes the dufus's kids. Interesting the dufus and his kids are innocent, and the Biden's not, even with the dufus having been already subject to consequences of his bad business practices in the past.

I got no problem with such investigations. As politically motivated as they may seem to be. Nothing new there.

Who is investigating Trump and his business practices including his kids?

New York authorities investigating millions in tax write-offs from the Trump Organization - CNNPolitics (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/politics/trump-tax-write-offs-fraud-investigation/index.html)

New York attorney general investigating Trump over financial statements | TheHill (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/513390-new-york-attorney-general-investigating-trump-over-financial)

NY District Attorney Reveals Potential Trump Criminal Investigation (bipartisanreport.com) (https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/09/21/ny-district-attorney-reveals-potential-trump-criminal-investigation/)

Well, let's agree together that the guilty should be brought to justice, be it a Trump or a Biden. Agreed?

Here's some of your "fact checking" at work. Who turned out to be right?

"President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine (https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/coronavirus-vaccine-updates-moderna-pfizer-more-n1202886) could come within months, an accelerated timeline that prominent health experts and veteran vaccine developers say is unlikely absent a miracle."We're looking to get it by the end of the year if we can, maybe before," Trump said Friday during in a Rose Garden event centered on his administration's efforts to fast-track a vaccine (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-names-scientist-army-general-lead-coronavirus-vaccine-effort-n1207906).

“Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,” Trump tweeted on Thursday."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-coronavirus-vaccine-could-come-year-trump-says-experts-n1207411

Okay, but why was he also telling us the virus would disappear on it's own, and it wouldn't come back in the fall?

trump say virus will go away - - Video Search Results (yahoo.com) (https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-syn&hsimp=yhs-syn&hspart=iba&p=trump+say+virus+will+go+away#id=1&vid=b7717d95fb3de643c77691d87a4d31e2&action=click)


Well, let's agree together that the guilty should be brought to justice, be it a Trump or a Biden. Agreed?

Of course.

Trump has no monopoly on foolish remarks.


1. “If my opponent wins, they’re going to put y’all back in chains.” – Joe Biden during the 2012 campaign cycle referring to liberal darling and never-Trump ally, Mitt Romney
2. “Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a Jungle…a racial jungle” – Joe Biden on desegregating schools in 1977
3. If you’re having trouble figuring out if you’re for me or you’re for Trump then you aint black.” – Joe Biden in a May 2020 video interview with Charlamagne tha God
4. “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.” – Joe Biden in 2019 to the Asian and Latino Coalition
5. “You cannot go to a 7-eleven or a Dunkin Donuts without a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” – Joe Biden in 2006 while bragging about how great he is with the Indian American community
6. “I do not buy the concept, popular in the 60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years.’” – Joe Biden again on integrating schools which he opposed vehemently in the LATE 70s.
7. “We [Delawareans] were on the South’s side of the Civil War.” – Joe Biden in 1987 in Alabama
8. “I mean you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate, bright and clean.” – Joe Biden on Barack Obama in 2008

Don't you think it was really nice for JB to declare Barack Obama to be a "clean" African American? Is that what the liberal dems love, a good, "clean" African American?

https://www.freepressfail.com/2020/08/12/the-top-8-most-racist-things-joe-biden-has-said/

Everybody even Joe knows he ain't perfect, but it's official now, the Electoral College has just made Biden the president elect and the process moves forward to the congress.

Electoral College Makes Joe Biden’s Presidential Win Official (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/electoral-college-makes-joe-biden-s-presidential-win-official/ar-BB1bVuVV?ocid=msedgntp)

Funny how you can excuse Biden as just “ain’t perfect”, but there always has to be a sinister motive with Trump. Bias, you think?

there always has to be a sinister motive with Trump. Bias, you think?
No bias. Listen to his words! Read his tweets!

Funny how you can excuse Biden as just “ain’t perfect”, but there always has to be a sinister motive with Trump. Bias, you think?

The dufus is a lying, cheating stealing bigmouth bully of near criminal proportions. Always has been, always will be. That's not bias, that's just reality without spin, or denial of the obvious. You may disagree and that's fine but that's my opinion.

The dufus is a lying, cheating stealing bigmouth bully of near criminal proportions. Always has been, always will be. That's not bias, that's just reality without spin, or denial of the obvious. You may disagree and that's fine but that's my opinion.


Don't shout criminal too soon, it is all business

Don't shout criminal too soon, it is all business

I've called him a criminal since he announced his presidency so what's changed?

What has changed? where have you been? laying in a covid stupor? Trump is gone, it's what you wanted

The dufus is a lying, cheating stealing bigmouth bully of near criminal proportions. Always has been, always will be. That's not bias, that's just reality without spin, or denial of the obvious. You may disagree and that's fine but that's my opinion.But Biden simply "ain't perfect"??? Yep. No political bias going on here, I'm sure.


No bias. Listen to his words! Read his tweets!So you are one of those who applaud the existence of a nice, "clean", African American??? Yeah. Couldn't be any political bias going on here, either.

Couldn't be any political bias going on here, either.
Nothing political. If my husband acted like Trump does and talked like he does, I'd file for divorce -- or, more likely, would never would have married him in the first place. The man (Trump) is a mental/physical/emotional/psychological disaster!

Couldn't be any political bias going on here, either.actually political bias is the wrong term, partisanship is what is happening here. We have assembled a company of partisans

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2020/12/11/steve_breen_steve_breen_for_dec_11_2020_5_.jpg

Nothing political. If my husband acted like Trump does and talked like he does, I'd file for divorce -- or, more likely, would never would have married him in the first place. The man (Trump) is a mental/physical/emotional/psychological disaster!Eight women have accused Biden of improper sexual behavior, and his racist comments are legend, but you'd evidently be happy to be married to him. So let's see. Do we see any evidence of political bias here?

I understand that people voted for Biden because he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, will borrow and spend faster than a speeding bullet, and will risk destroying the economy to implement the GND, but to pretend you voted for him because he is, after all, a great guy is just ridiculous. He is every bit as scummy as Trump is, and if you don't see that, then you are completely self-deceived and possessed of a political vision dominated by a hatred of Trump. The real difference is that Trump actually has some competence. Biden is a boob.

Eight women have accused Biden of improper sexual behavior, and his racist comments are legend, but you'd evidently be happy to be married to him. So let's see. Do we see any evidence of political bias here?
I responded about Trump. I wouldn't have married Biden either but for much different reasons.

I understand that people voted for Biden because he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, will borrow and spend faster than a speeding bullet, and will risk destroying the economy to implement the GND, but to pretend you voted for him because he is, after all, a great guy is just ridiculous. He is every bit as scummy as Trump is, and if you don't see that, then you are completely self-deceived and possessed of a political vision dominated by a hatred of Trump. The real difference is that Trump actually has some competence. Biden is a boob.
Have I ever said whom I voted for? Nope! You're barking up the wrong tree with your nastiness and accusations. And Trump has absolutely NO competence regarding anything.

Have I ever said whom I voted for? Nope! You're barking up the wrong tree with your nastiness and accusations. And Trump has absolutely NO competence regarding anything.1 I don't think anyone here would have a real hard time figuring out who you voted for. 2. I have been nasty about nothing. 3. When you develop a billion dollar business and have an economy setting records for low unemployment, then you can try and suggest that Trump has no competence. Until then, it's just TDS on display.

1 I don't think anyone here would have a real hard time figuring out who you voted for.
None of your business and who cares?

2. I have been nasty about nothing.
You're almost always nasty until you get some rocks upside your head!

3. When you develop a billion .dollar business and have an economy setting records for low unemployment, then you can try and suggest that Trump has no competence. Until then, it's just TDS on display.
Show me the tax returns to verify that billion dollar business, and that low unemployment achievement has been destroyed by a virus that has devastated this country at greater levels than it did in the beginning.

TDS/Trump Denial Syndrome? He can't believe he got the boot and neither can you. History will judge you as a right wing loon and the dufus as your cult leader.

Hey Tal don't shout

Caps are shouting...Bold is emphasis!

1 I don't think anyone here would have a real hard time figuring out who you voted for.
None of your business and who cares?I couldn't care less. I didn't raise the issue. Pay attention.


2. I have been nasty about nothing.
You're almost always nasty until you get some rocks upside your head!Sure I do. Your only problem is that you can never identify a single instance when that happened.


Show me the tax returns to verify that billion dollar business, and that low unemployment achievement has been destroyed by a virus that has devastated this country at greater levels than it did in the beginning.It is a well known fact that Trump is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But thank you for agreeing that he had a "low unemployment achievement" that was only derailed by a pandemic unlike any we have had in over a century.


TDS/Trump Denial Syndrome? He can't believe he got the boot and neither can you. History will judge you as a right wing loon and the dufus as your cult leader.As usual, when you have no useful thoughts, you resort to meaningless name calling. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I couldn't care less. I didn't raise the issue. Pay attention.
Yes, YOU raised the issue with your "bias" comments.

I meant I don't care who you voted for and didn't raise that as any real issue, but when you try to make it look like some sort of mystery, that's really stretching it a good bit. Surely you can see that on this board you amount to a registered, life-long democrat with your never ending criticism of Trump and your enthusiastic support of KH/JB.

Surely you can see that on this board you amount to a registered, life-long democrat with your never ending criticism of Trump and your enthusiastic support of KH/JB.
I have no clue what you're reading that makes you think that. Probably because I'm not kissing Trump's fat a** like you do. I'm a registered Repub who votes for the individual, not the party.

I have no clue what you're reading that makes you think that.Perhaps you can refer us to any positive statement you have made about a conservative repub in the past six months that would have made me think otherwise?


Probably because I'm not kissing Trump's fat a**...As usual here. Nothing useful to say, so you resort to vulgar garbage. Disappointing coming from you. And you wanted to accuse me of "nastiness"? You are now the pot and kettle both.


I'm a registered Repub who votes for the individual, not the party.I believe that. You vote for every individual liberal dem you can find.

Perhaps you can refer us to any positive statement you have made about a conservative repub in the past six months that would have made me think otherwise?
I have said more than once on this board that "I like Ike". I won't dare ruffle your feathers by asking you to check the thread names and post numbers they were on. You always refuse to check back.

Really?? “I like Ike” from seventy years ago? Well, that is hardly compelling.

Got to be better than I like Biden surely or let us never say I like Trump again

WG haven't you heard? If your head isn't shoulder deep up the dufus a$$ you're considered a liberal. I suspect JL has found a way to get his shoulders pushed in deeper. Or is he wearing sneakers on his hands?

Poor Tal. His fantasies so entertain him. Do you have friends with similar interests? I'll bet you do.

No wonder you don't tie your shoes up...it would keep you from talking...or typing.