PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives are dumb


paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 12:44 AM
Yes sir, Romney just set out to prove that
Hidden camera catches Romney's real thoughts on the other 47 per cent (http://www.smh.com.au/world/hidden-camera-catches-romneys-real-thoughts-on-the-other-47-per-cent-20120918-26456.html)
If you have no respect for the voters you can't expect them to vote for you, so what he is about is populist politics just playing to the 5% who might be swinging, or undecided.

NeedKarma
Sep 18, 2012, 01:58 AM
This coming from the guy who established socialized healthcare in his own state. These guys are self-destructing.

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 04:40 AM
Maybe we should ask the' bitter clingers' .

NeedKarma
Sep 18, 2012, 04:45 AM
Try whatever tactic you feel would work.

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 04:51 AM
Ask whoever you like Tom, it doesn't matter because the candidate is imploding

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 05:18 AM
The point being that both candidates have been caught making off the cuff comments when they assumed they weren't being recorded . Romney over-reacted holding a press conference . He should've said ;yeah I said it... so ? He's not wrong . The Dems have that built in constituency ,and he is not wrong about the expanding numbers of people becoming permanent members of the entitlement culture . Over 100 million Americans receive some form of federal welfare benefits, millions have gone on Social Security disability ,and that number has increased dramatically since 2008, and many millions more living on entitlement programs .With the baby boomer generation beginning to retire ,and fewer workers per beneficiary to pay for it ;we are close to the point of no return (if we haven't already crossed the Rubicon) .

This of course is fodder for the Ivy League bred egg heads that Santorum mentioned . Their idea of charity is to make laws that forces others to pay for their sense of rightiousness while they keep the poor at arms length.

But where Romney is not right is the extent of the problem. There are many more people who will shout "hands off my.... (name the government program) " ;including Republics and the affluent. We have become a nation of rent-seekers and that will be our doom.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."Alexis de Tocqueville

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 07:37 AM
We have become a nation of rent-seekers and that will be our doom

Surely you are not yet comtemplating your doom Tom, how unamerican of you

talaniman
Sep 18, 2012, 07:39 AM
If they took your house and job, you would be a rent seeker too!

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 07:49 AM
Tom that may be true but they can't take my house and my job, these things are not up to them. In my lifetime Tom I have known periods of unemployment, which made me focus on the essentials

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 07:55 AM
If they took your house and job, you would be a rent seeker too!

You should look up what rent-seeker means.

NeedKarma
Sep 18, 2012, 07:57 AM
you should look up what rent-seeker means.
Code word?

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 08:03 AM
No there is a definition... really there is...

speechlesstx
Sep 18, 2012, 08:19 AM
He's 100% correct, Obama is campaigning on it. Just ask Julia (http://thelifeofjulia.com/).

speechlesstx
Sep 18, 2012, 10:28 AM
I would also add that in addition to being right, Romney is the kind of guy that takes personal responsibility for helping those in need instead of pushing them off on others.

Mitt Romney, Friend in Need (http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-friend-in-need/)

I'd take a guy who'll grab the shovel himself over the guy who leads from behind (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-price-of-obamas-leading-from-behind/2012/09/17/b9314986-00f2-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html) any day.

NeedKarma
Sep 18, 2012, 10:38 AM
Romney’s tax returns show that he donated over $7 million in 2010-2011 alone, over 16% of his income
Holy crap I wish I were that rich all my life.

Here's where he grew up: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomfield_Hills,_Michigan)

A nice life if you can get it. Never ever having to worry about money.

speechlesstx
Sep 18, 2012, 11:51 AM
Naturally you choose once again to distract from the point. Leave to you and the lefties here to distract and demonize a guy who gave away his inheritance, took no salary as governor, gives millions to charity and rolls up his sleeves and digs in personally when someone is in need.

NeedKarma
Sep 18, 2012, 12:17 PM
It is a nice photo op, no doubt. But let's see if he can recover from his blunders.

speechlesstx
Sep 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
Unfortunately for him the media isn't carrying his water or it would already be Romney in a landslide. We have troops dying in Afghanistan at the hands of their "allies," the government is spending a trillion dollars more per year than 5 years ago (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577497442109193610.html?m od=opinion_newsreel), 12.5 million unemployed including 5.5 million women and gas is nearing $4.00 a gallon compared to about $1.80 when Obama took over. Instead, this administration actually coordinates with media types.

Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/#ixzz26r5G9k00)

Again I ask, how is the public being served with nothing but distractions and phony narratives being served up?

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 01:32 PM
I would also add that in addition to being right, Romney is the kind of guy that takes personal responsibility for helping those in need instead of pushing them off on others.

Mitt Romney, Friend in Need (http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-friend-in-need/)

I'd take a guy who'll grab the shovel himself over the guy who leads from behind (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-price-of-obamas-leading-from-behind/2012/09/17/b9314986-00f2-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html) any day.

I had heard of the last 2 examples . This just proves that these are not the 'photo ops ' that NK claims they are . He has a life time worth of good works ,and he is not the heartless, out-of-touch CEO who likes to fire people that the Obots define him as ;and his campaign staff let then get away with.

talaniman
Sep 18, 2012, 03:09 PM
you should look up what rent-seeker means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

I know what you meant but obviously my smart alleck remark went over your head.

I have been saying Romney is a plutocrat who wants/does extracts wealth through writing the rules to make it legal for along time. He still wants a tax cut for himself that enhances what he already has by removing aid to those that need it because his charity work is all the safety net those lazy irresponsible 47% deserve.

We have already discussed that 47%, mostly old people and children, and the working poor. Its condenscending to categorize these people as lazy takers and elevating himself as a maker. The HAVES talking about the HAVE NOTS. Redistribute the wealth to the ones that deserve it!

Go ahead hold the door while the crooks get away with the loot.


Unfortunately for him the media isn't carrying his water or it would already be Romney in a landslide. We have troops dying in Afghanistan at the hands of their "allies," the government is spending a trillion dollars more per year than 5 years ago (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577497442109193610.html?m od=opinion_newsreel), 12.5 million unemployed including 5.5 million women and gas is nearing $4.00 a gallon compared to about $1.80 when Obama took over. Instead, this administration actually coordinates with media types.

Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/#ixzz26r5G9k00)

Again I ask, how is the public being served with nothing but distractions and phony narratives being served up?

If you listen to him he admits that trickle down economics doesn't work for those that have no money, so he discounts them, and that's evident in that he has been dancing around all day defending his own words as more and more of his words keep coming out.

tomder55
Sep 18, 2012, 04:17 PM
I agree that many of the 47%ers don't want to get locked into the future the President has mapped out for them... a future of permanent dependency. That is why Romney was clumsy in saying they were naturally Obama constituents. He should make the conservative case to all voters and strive for a 55-60% vote.

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 04:36 PM
Tom you have to face it this guy can't keep his foot out of his mouth, in fact he only stops talking so he can change feet, if he wants to win he needs to let the other guy do the talking.

I have seen his remarks on Palestine. Whilst he might be putting forward a realistic view, this is not demonstrating leadership qualtities in a world that needs either offer a plausible solution or remove yourself from the problem. Telling people the facts doesn't win elections

I could envisage this fellow making even more oafish decisions than Bush

talaniman
Sep 18, 2012, 04:41 PM
So the 47% lazy undeserving no taxing paying misceants are democrats?

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 04:44 PM
Tom obviously thinks so, but then with such a vision for the future which doesn't include them you could not blame them for voting for Obama

talaniman
Sep 18, 2012, 04:58 PM
Bob Woodward just told Erin Burnetton CNN that most of those 47% are republicans. Now what?

talaniman
Sep 18, 2012, 06:41 PM
Isn't Mitt Romney a Member of the 47 Percent? | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/170000/isnt-mitt-romney-member-47-percent?rel=emailNation#)

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 07:47 PM
Poor, unemployed white trash republicans, perish the thought, but then there is the red neck vote, maybe Romney was making a racist remark and referring to Obama's black constituency

paraclete
Sep 18, 2012, 10:26 PM
The attachment here has a link to a number of videos where Romney outlines his thoughts on many policy positions. If you want to hear these positions go to the foot of the article
Romney rules out Israel, Palestinian peace - World - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/romney-rules-out-peace-with-palestinians/4268954?section=world)

He really doesn't have much to offer other than a hail mary but he is unlikely to pray that prayer

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 03:27 AM
Hello:

The good news about the Romney tape, is that it's hurting Republicans down stream. This guy is so toxic I think they may lose the House.

excon

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 04:33 AM
Hello again:

I figured out what's missing in Romney... He's NOT an optimist. I don't want to hire Debby Downer..

excon

paraclete
Sep 19, 2012, 04:55 AM
Good luck Ex

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 05:22 AM
Hello again,

Part of the 47%:

paraclete
Sep 19, 2012, 06:43 AM
Yes Ex I know you are right, they have short memories, about two years I think

tomder55
Sep 19, 2012, 07:14 AM
Hello:

The good news about the Romney tape, is that it's hurting Republicans down stream. This guy is so toxic I think they may lose the House.

Excon

If the goal is to win the election and destroy the country in the process... Obama's your man.


In politics, you can get into a lot of trouble if you're caught telling a lie.
There's only one thing worse: getting caught telling the truth.

That's what happened to Mitt Romney when that video surfaced of him chatting about the "47 percent of the people who will vote for President Obama no matter what."

In the leaked video of him addressing Republican donors, Romney went on to describe the 47 percent as people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" and so on.


That was certainly an indelicate way for a political candidate to describe almost half the electorate. And Romney's getting pilloried by the Democrats for his comments.

But I imagine the Dems say the same sort of thing behind closed doors. I sincerely doubt if there's a single Democratic consultant out there who doesn't agree with Romney's assessment that "the president starts off with 48, 49 ... he starts off with a huge number"

Unfortunately for Romney, that number may be even higher. Greg Mankiw, a widely respected Harvard economist who is an adviser to Romney, recently posted on his blog figures showing that only the top two-fifths of American taxpayers are giving the government more in taxes than they get back in transfer payments.

Mankiw concluded that "the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess."

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html

How can a Republican win in that environment? He can't, says Reid Holloway.

Holloway is a stock trader from Connecticut with the solidest of conservative credentials. He served on the legendary Grace Commission on government waste during the Reagan administration. He's a market-oriented guy who criticizes Obama as "just another tax-and-spend Democrat."

In 1996, Holloway started predicting elections based on the same sort of economic data Romney referenced. He's been right every time. And more than six months ago, he predicted Obama will cruise to re-election with 325 electoral votes to Romney's 213.

"I usually don't make my predictions till July," he told me when I phoned him yesterday. "But I made that one in April and I'm sticking to it."

The reason is the change in the economy. Normally, an incumbent president is in trouble if he can't produce growth in the private sector. A Republican could always oust a Democrat by promising economic growth, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

But that model has broken down, he said. A lot of people no longer trust that "a rising tide lifts all boats," particularly aging Baby Boomers.

"Imagine an aging boomer approaching retirement who's dispirited about getting kicked out of job at 55 or 59," he said. "He doesn't want to take a risk by voting for a traditional conservative who believes in free-market job creation."

What he wants is to get on some government program, such as disability, and ride it into retirement. The Obama administration has been packing such programs with people. And these people aren't going to vote for Romney no matter how much they may agree with him on social issues, Holloway said.

All that stuff about religion, guns and abortion is great fun for us media types, he said. But people vote their pocketbooks.

Holloway assesses the race in terms of a figure familiar to New Jerseyans. "Its kind of a Tony Soprano relationship that most governments have with the people," he said. "People down on their luck look to government as benefactors a lot like people looked at Tony Soprano."

The only good news for Romney — from Holloway's perspective — is that this video can't really harm his chances. Thanks to the demographics, he doesn't have much of a chance anyway.

"You don't have many options when you're seven weeks out to the elections," he said.

No, you don't. Romney seems on his way to becoming a victim of the very problem he cited. But in Holloway's view, and mine, it's a very real problem. We, as a country, are never going to get our finances straightened out if a majority of voters have an incentive to support ever-increasing spending.
That is a debate we need to have. Even if Romney can't finish it, at least give him credit for starting it.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/09/mitt_romney_told_it_like_it_is.html

speechlesstx
Sep 19, 2012, 07:39 AM
Hello again,

Part of the 47%:

I don't think so (http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-friend-in-need/).


Ken Smith, the former director of the New England Center for Homeless Veterans, also came on Beck’s show to discuss what Buzzfeed called “a cringe worthy moment in 1994.”

During the visit to the shelter, Smith said Romney first looked at the shelter’s books for about 45 minutes and then took a tour of the facility. At the end of the tour, Romney asked what Smith’s biggest problem was. Smith told him the shelter had problems paying for milk, and Romney replied, “Well Ken, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows.”

The next day, Smith said, the newspapers were killing him for the remark, and Romney called Smith to apologize. The following day, the milkman showed up, offloaded his milk and gave Smith a bill that was half of its normal size. The same things happened for a month, two months, three months, and then for a full two years, Smith said. Finally, on the day the milkman was to retire, he told Smith that Romney had been paying for the milk.

“Romney’s generosity has helped tens of thousands of veterans who are homeless, who have been through this facility, with nourishment,” Smith said. “The milk cartons said the name of the milk company, it didn’t say, ‘donated by Mitt Romney.’”

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 07:44 AM
If the goal is to win the election and destroy the country in the process...Obama's your man.Hello tom:

The problem with your side, is you, along with Romney, BELIEVE what Rush Limprod is telling you.. I know, I know, you don't listen to him.. But, the people you DO listen to, listen to him. He IS the titular head of the right wing. THEY/HE says that Obama is a socialist and wants to destroy the country... Something about his upbringing NOT being American... You buy it...

Now, I agree that Obama has NOT been specific about his plans if he's reelected... You believe he'll spend, spend, spend... I believe he'll cut, cut, cut. After all, he's not a Muslim, and he doesn't want to destroy America..

Unlike, Romney, however, he understands ARITHMETIC. Bad arithmetic will destroy my beloved country too.

excon

tomder55
Sep 19, 2012, 07:58 AM
Weaving a lot of straw these days Ex. Too many to address. But show me anywhere where he has a plan hidden or otherwise to" cut, cut, cut. " He doesn't want that he wants stimulus redux ex machina .

speechlesstx
Sep 19, 2012, 08:10 AM
Seems your Mother Jones leaked an incomplete video they called complete (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser) then recanted (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/critical-audio-gap-in-complete-romney-tape-released-by-mother-jones/) when challenged. Some selective editing there? Whether it changes anything or not where's the full context??

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 08:34 AM
But show me anywhere where he has a plan hidden or otherwise to" cut, cut, cut. " He doesn't want that he wants stimulus redux ex machina .Hello again, tom:

The Limp one needs an economics lesson... As a businessman, when I want to attract employees and new customers, I INVEST in my infrastructure. You know, clean up, fix up and paint up.. When things get rip roaring again, as they surly will, THAT'S the time to pay back my debt.

DURING my re-building faze, I'd cut, cut, cut programs that are wasteful and NOT necessary for my resurgence. That's the SMART way to go about it, and Obama IS smart.

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 19, 2012, 08:59 AM
Hello again, tom:

The Limp one needs an economics lesson... As a businessman, when I want to attract employees and new customers, I INVEST in my infrastructure. You know, clean up, fix up and paint up.. When things get rip roaring again, as they surly will, THAT'S the time to pay back my debt.

DURING my re-building faze, I'd cut, cut, cut programs that are wasteful and NOT necessary for my resurgence. That's the SMART way to go about it, and Obama IS smart.

Excon

So all his focus on fairness, income inequality (redistribution), "the American deal that says, you know, we are focused on building a strong middle class” as he puts it has gotten us what?

Unemployment is still 8 percent and the median income is below recession levels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/household-income-is-below-recession-levels-report-says/2012/08/23/aa497460-ec80-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html).


Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report...

Yep, he's a smart guy.

NeedKarma
Sep 19, 2012, 09:06 AM
Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report...

Yep, he's a smart guy.
But you say the rich are the job creators, wouldn't this be their fault?

excon
Sep 19, 2012, 09:07 AM
So all his focus on fairness, income inequality (redistribution), Yep, he's a smart guy.Hello again, Steve:

Democrats have ALWAYS focused on fairness and income inequality... It's right wing gibberish to suggest that paying people the SAME wage for the SAME work is income redistribution... It's bizarre that you think that way.. But, in terms of FOCUS, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter law in his first month... There ain't been nothing since except a lot of screaming from the Limp one..

Frankly, suggesting the poor (47%) pay MORE in taxes so the rich can get another tax break is income redistribution...

excon

tomder55
Sep 19, 2012, 09:39 AM
Hello again, tom:

The Limp one needs an economics lesson... As a businessman, when I want to attract employees and new customers, I INVEST in my infrastructure. You know, clean up, fix up and paint up.. When things get rip roaring again, as they surly will, THAT'S the time to pay back my debt.

DURING my re-building faze, I'd cut, cut, cut programs that are wasteful and NOT necessary for my resurgence. That's the SMART way to go about it, and Obama IS smart.

excon

Well I can agree that's how you would do things . The President ? He has shown me nothing to indicate he plans on cutting anything . Everything he says and does indicates to me he is very comfortable growing the Federal government in size ,power ,and influence on American lives.

tomder55
Sep 19, 2012, 09:43 AM
Seems your Mother Jones leaked an incomplete video they called complete (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser) then recanted (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/critical-audio-gap-in-complete-romney-tape-released-by-mother-jones/) when challenged. Some selective editing there? Whether it changes anything or not where's the full context?????

Mother Milhous Jones.

speechlesstx
Sep 19, 2012, 09:54 AM
Mother Milhous Jones.

LOL, good one.

speechlesstx
Sep 19, 2012, 10:07 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Democrats have ALWAYS focused on fairness and income inequality... It's right wing gibberish to suggest that paying people the SAME wage for the SAME work is income redistribution... It's bizarre that you think that way..

It would be bizarre to think that way but I agree that would be gibberish. I don't think people should be paid less than others for the same work, that would be the White House that pays women less (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html) than their male counterparts.


But, in terms of FOCUS, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter law in his first month... There ain't been nothing since except a lot of screaming from the Limp one..

I already told you equal pay is the law of the land, it was passed in 1963. This Ledbetter thing is also law of the land, so what are you whining about?


Frankly, suggesting the poor (47%) pay MORE in taxes so the rich can get another tax break is income redistribution...

I think that's just hot air. What's not hot air is the principle that what's mine is mine, not yours. You lefties somehow don't get that.

paraclete
Sep 19, 2012, 05:55 PM
I think that's just hot air. What's not hot air is the principle that what's mine is mine, not yours. You lefties somehow don't get that.

Look speech I won't argue the concept that taxation is theft, it is purely and simply legalised theft. However, anarchy is not a pleasant system to live under so some compromises have to be made. When you elect a representative and that representative agrees to use taxation to provide services, under the system of government you have, that decision is as if you had made it yourself. It is apparent you only like majority rules when you are in the majority but it doesn't work that way. Where I come from we have a saying; the objective is to get as much fleece with the minimum of bleating, we see taxation as the equivalent of shearing sheep

talaniman
Sep 19, 2012, 06:26 PM
QUOTE by speechlesstx;It would be bizarre to think that way but I agree that would be gibberish. I don't think people should be paid less than others for the same work, that would be the White House that pays women less (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html) than their male counterparts.

We would have to look and see if indeed it was the same work or the same position.


I already told you equal pay is the law of the land, it was passed in 1963. This Ledbetter thing is also law of the land, so what are you whining about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009


The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111-2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.

They changed the old law to make it fair for the injured party. Get your facts straight. Of course most repubs were against it, but please read the whole thing.

(on redistribution)

I think that's just hot air. What's not hot air is the principle that what's mine is mine, not yours. You lefties somehow don't get that.

Sorry my friend but we do get silver spoons and golden parachutes being paid on the backs of consumers and workers, by those that claim to be job creators who haven't created jobs, and blames your favorite president for not creating jobs when its not his job.

We have ample evidence that the job creators take tax cuts, hide the money, exploit overseas cheap labor and close American plants and cause workers to lose their pensions, houses and dignity. That's supply side redistribution and has devastated us so far.

What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine is the whole basis for the NEW tax cuts in Romneys plan that's online and that too is redistribution from the bottom to the top.

What's in your wallet?


EDITED/ BREAKING NEWS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57516081/ag-holder-cleared-in-justice-gunwalking-probe/

NeedKarma
Sep 20, 2012, 01:02 AM
But back to the OP.

Dumb Mitt Romney Quotes - Romney Gaffes and Stupid Quotes (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-mitt-romney-quotes.htm?PS=589%3A4)

41412

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 06:12 AM
They changed the old law to make it fair for the injured party. Get your facts straight. Of course most repubs were against it, but please read the whole thing.

Is it the law of the land or not? Yes it is, so the facts can't be any more straight than being 100 percent correct. The rest you just regurgitate reflexively.

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 06:21 AM
look speech I won't argue the concept that taxation is theft, it is purely and simply legalised theft. However, anarchy is not a pleasant system to live under so some compromises have to be made. When you elect a representative and that representative agrees to use taxation to provide services, under the system of government you have, that decision is as if you had made it yourself. It is apparent you only like majority rules when you are in the majority but it doesn't work that way. Where I come from we have a saying; the objective is to get as much fleece with the minimum of bleating, we see taxation as the equivalent of shearing sheep

With you there is no middle ground is there? Anarchy? Seriously? I've never objected to or shirked from paying taxes. When is enough, enough? Our elected leaders need to stop this social and economic engineering, stop with the slush funds for their cronies, the pork for their neighborhoods and approach every dollar spent knowing that someone else earned it. You wouldn't appreciate me spending your money now would you?

TUT317
Sep 20, 2012, 06:23 AM
Mother Milhous Jones.


It is good that we are becoming aware of the importance of context.

Well... until the next time maybe?

Tut

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 06:24 AM
But back to the OP.

Glad Obama is being presidential himself.

NeedKarma
Sep 20, 2012, 06:28 AM
It was Talk Like a Pirate day.

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 06:32 AM
It was Talk Like a Pirate day.

Duh?? Two days earlier was Constitution Day and no tweets about that, I can see where his priorities are.

NeedKarma
Sep 20, 2012, 06:35 AM
Ok sure:
Obama proclaims Constitution Day - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/17/Obama-proclaims-Constitution-Day/UPI-36711347915273/)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (UPI) -- President Obama declared Monday Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, beginning an observance of the U.S. Constitution's 225th anniversary, a statement said.

Obama encouraged local and state leaders to commemorate Constitution Week with civic ceremonies and programs designed to reflect on the importance of the document that has guided the United States "from a fragile experiment in democracy to a beacon of freedom that lights the world," the U.S. Defense Department said in a release.

The president also welcomed new citizens taking their oaths Monday.

What else do you want to manufacture fake outrage about?

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 06:42 AM
Ok sure:
Obama proclaims Constitution Day - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/17/Obama-proclaims-Constitution-Day/UPI-36711347915273/)

What else do you want to manufacture fake outrage about?

I said, "no tweets." Nobody reads presidential proclamations but they'll follow his Twitter feed. Which deserved attention?

NeedKarma
Sep 20, 2012, 06:51 AM
Yawn.

tomder55
Sep 20, 2012, 07:07 AM
With you there is no middle ground is there? Anarchy? Seriously? I've never objected to or shirked from paying taxes. When is enough, enough? Our elected leaders need to stop this social and economic engineering, stop with the slush funds for their cronies, the pork for their neighborhoods and approach every dollar spent knowing that someone else earned it. You wouldn't appreciate me spending your money now would you?

The strawman they construct is that if we want lower rates or tax reform that we want no taxes .

excon
Sep 20, 2012, 07:21 AM
The strawman they construct is that if we want lower rates or tax reform that we want no taxes .Hello again, tom:

It's EASY to TALK about tax reform, but NOBODY is going to give up THEIR personal deduction or exemption, or subsidy. Let's just take the home mortgage deduction... Steve and I had a discussion about that before... He believes the deduction allows him to KEEP some of his money.. Because I don't get it, I believe it's a handout. He's NOT going to give it up. If you get it, you're not either...

But, I'm willing to listen to which ones you ARE willing to give up... Go ahead, list 'em...

excon

tomder55
Sep 20, 2012, 07:39 AM
I'm willing to give up ALL in exchange for lower and flatter rates where everyone has skin in the game. . It would've been better if it wasn't given in the 1st place because that naturally distorts the market. But so be it... phase it out .

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 07:41 AM
Hello again, tom:

It's EASY to TALK about tax reform, but NOBODY is going to give up THEIR personal deduction or exemption, or subsidy. Let's just take the home mortgage deduction... Steve and I had a discussion about that before... He believes the deduction allows him to KEEP some of his money.. Because I don't get it, I believe it's a handout. He's NOT gonna give it up. If you get it, you're not either...

But, I'm willing to listen to which ones you ARE willing to give up... Go ahead, list 'em...

excon

So are you finally admitting that Dems screwed up by giving people breaks to buy houses?

excon
Sep 20, 2012, 07:48 AM
So are you finally admitting that Dems screwed up by giving people breaks to buy houses?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know where you got the idea that I was a Democrat... Republicans had a hand in tinkering with the tax code so that THEIR friends could get some of the goodies...

I believe the tax code should be written to raise revenue, NOT to make social policy. I'm FOR a flat tax, bent on BOTH ends so that the rich pay MORE than everybody else, and the poor pay LESS than everybody else.

We could write it on one page. In the REAL world, it AIN'T going to happen.

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 08:07 AM
A bent flat tax. Oh the irony.

excon
Sep 20, 2012, 11:19 AM
Hello again, Steve:

You may not like the word picture I painted, but if you think we're EVER going to pass a FLAT tax where the poor pay the same as the rich, you been drinking the Romney koolaid..

Maybe you don't understand WHY poor people should pay little taxes, if any... That's cause you don't think they're really POOR, do you?? I mean, they all got cell phones, don't they? The moochers...

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 20, 2012, 11:36 AM
No, just pointing out the irony of a flat tax that isn't flat.

paraclete
Sep 20, 2012, 02:27 PM
So ex wants a progressive tax, this is because ex is progessive, he wants to tax the rich more, and tax the poor less and he calls this a flat tax. Have you also joined the flat Earth Society, ex, you know the one flat but curved at the ends and meeting itself coming back

Dewrose
Sep 25, 2012, 10:50 PM
So is your question is for confirmation that Conservatives are dumb? Well then my answer is that being "dumb" has nothing to do with being a conservative or a liberal. People from both sides will put their foot in their mouths and say dumb things. Such as Romney's remarks or even Obama's remarks in different scenarios. Both are at fault and tend to have the insert foot in mouth delema. It happens to everyone. Lol.

paraclete
Sep 26, 2012, 12:23 AM
I'm willing to give up ALL in exchange for lower and flatter rates where everyone has skin in the game. . It would've been better if it wasn't given in the 1st place because that naturally distorts the market. But so be it...phase it out .

Tom you just don't get it a flat rate tax is unfair to the poor, you have to do something to level the playing field which means wages regulated above the poverty line, employment for all, proper health care for all. This is why these things are proposed so that the playing field is level, it's not to take your money away but to make sure there is a minimum standard for all so they don't have to go begging to you. Don't you realise you all have a common interest, that your country was founded on slavery and has never lost the ideas behind it

tomder55
Sep 26, 2012, 02:03 AM
You guys are big on trading equal treatment for yourself defined view of 'fairness' .You've gone from 'level playing field ' to redistributionist 'spread the wealth.'

paraclete
Sep 26, 2012, 06:00 AM
Tom you know capitalism can't exist on a level playing field and a flat tax isn't a level playing field. We have debated fairness before and as I recall fairness for you is more for you and less for someoneelse. Fairness Tom is when we all have an equal share of the pie

tomder55
Sep 26, 2012, 06:23 AM
How very Marxist of you. I say we grow the pie and most, except the very needy ,who we provide for, get what they add to the pie .

paraclete
Sep 26, 2012, 03:52 PM
There in lies your error, the vast number of people have no ability to add to the pie, they are at the mercy of the few who control the resources. This is why there must be intervention to curb the excesses and inclination of those with the resources to exploit. It isn't just the very poor who should be provided for. You think my ideas are Marxist, but I abhor communism, state ownership of the resources is no better than capitalist ownership

talaniman
Sep 27, 2012, 01:32 PM
Tom is for the plutocrats. Anything else is just WRONG, no matter what you call it.

tomder55
Sep 27, 2012, 02:37 PM
the vast number of people have no ability to add to the pie that's correct .that is why you need capitalists ;acting in their greedy self interest to grow the pie for all of us. You think the government is capable of it?? (snort... bwa haa haa haa! )

paraclete
Sep 27, 2012, 02:39 PM
Tom wants a flat tax, it goes with his flat Earth view. He wants everyone to pay the same rate of tax and he calls me a Marxist, one size fits all Tom, in Tom's world view everyone can have the same health care, just so long as they can pay for it

tomder55
Sep 27, 2012, 02:49 PM
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”John Adams

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”James Madison

paraclete
Sep 27, 2012, 02:58 PM
Tom I have said it before you are stuck in the eighteenth century, these men lived in a different society, but more than that they were wealthy slave owners. They were exploiters of the worst kind but you uphold them as some sort of paragons of virtue because they rebelled and were successful

What would these men have thought of your chinese threat? They would have laughed at you

tomder55
Sep 27, 2012, 03:16 PM
, but more than that they were wealthy slave owners. They were exploiters of the worst kind but you uphold them as some sort of paragons of virtue because they rebelled and were successful

Read up on the history. John Adams was an opposed to slavery ,and although a lawyer ,he was not wealthy . Alexander Hamilton was an abolitionist . So were many other founders like John Jay who also co-wrote the Federalist papers.

You think the world you progressives has constructed is better ? How so... Western society is imploding in it's debt paying bread and circus. You say I'm stuck in the 18th century ;but your government appease the masses resembles Rome from Augusta to it's fall. When Romans abandoned self responsibility and self reliance, and began to vote themselves benefits, to use government to rob Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people's pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, their fate was sealed.

talaniman
Sep 27, 2012, 04:36 PM
that's correct .that is why you need capitalists ;acting in their greedy self interest to grow the pie for all of us. You think the government is capable of it ??????? (snort ....bwa haa haa haa !! )

Capitalist grow the pie for themselves. If you get a piece, you pay THEM for it. If NOT... keep it moving, nothing to see here.

Everything was great as long as the founding fathers ran things and those god given rights they enjoyed, by their own rules, applied only to them. So was the case with Rome,they fell when their loonies start thinking they were gods entitled to everything, but the money wasn't long enough.

Ruling the world is damn expensive. Trickle down economics didn't work then either.

paraclete
Sep 27, 2012, 04:39 PM
Rome is gone and I doubt America will last as long as Rome. You are making the same mistakes, projecting your power until someone realises it is an empty shell. The Romans became fat and lazy enjoying their money and you are doing the same. You are ruled by patrician families just as the Romans were

Thing is I live in a fairer world than you do, it hasn't bankrupted our state and we don't need slave labour in the form of migrant workers to prop up our society. You fail to understand empire, the Romans reaped the benefits of empire, you have been doing the same but it collapes when the extremidities of empire become wealthy and independent

TUT317
Sep 28, 2012, 02:44 AM
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”John Adams

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”James Madison

Hi Tom,

I am sure Adams, as well as other thinkers of the time were trying to echo Locke. One can also understand why there were admirers of Locke.

Unfortunately, Adams got it wrong in this case. Private property does not have anything to do with religion. Locke's account is a historical account of the origins of government. It isn't a theistic account of government.


Tut

tomder55
Sep 28, 2012, 03:45 AM
So it's OK for government to steal ?

talaniman
Sep 28, 2012, 03:52 AM
If they make it LEGAL its okay. Just ask Mitt, and Bank of America. The founders had their own self interest at the time. When people were private property.

TUT317
Sep 28, 2012, 04:07 AM
so it's ok for government to steal ?


No it's no all right for governments to steal.

I think I am as religious as the next person but you don't, and should not use religion as a justification for the ownership of private property or the ownership of the means of production. These types of ideas may well have been tolerated in the 18th century; but not today.

"Thou shall not steal' is an ethical commandment that applies to individuals, not governments. Governments should not be bound in any way to virtue ethics. In exactly the same way they should not be enforcing this type of ethic.

There are better way to justify the ownership of private property.

Tut

talaniman
Sep 28, 2012, 04:19 AM
Blatantly buying politicians and writing rules and regulations is not one of them.

tomder55
Sep 28, 2012, 04:39 AM
Blatantly buying politicians and writing rules and regulations is not one of them. couldn't have said it better myself. Your side is the worse offenders.

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 05:01 AM
couldn't have said it better myself. Your side is the worse offenders.None are so blind...
Your entire politics is geared that way, regardless of party affiliation.

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 06:43 AM
Capitalist grow the pie for themselves. If you get a piece, you pay THEM for it.

So you do want everything handed to you on a platter. So go ahead, get rid of the capitalists and then there will be no one left to grow a pie. Pretty soon you're going to run out of pie.

paraclete
Sep 28, 2012, 06:45 AM
Stop dealing in absolutes, no society can be successful dealing in absolutes

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 07:35 AM
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 07:41 AM
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret ThatcherSweden seems happy.

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 08:39 AM
Sweden has been taking a right turn (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/opinion/frum.sweden_1_fredrik-reinfeldt-swedish-way-civil-servants?_s=PM:OPINION) since the 90s.

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 09:30 AM
Isn't the US running out of money?

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 09:32 AM
Sweden has been taking a right turn (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/opinion/frum.sweden_1_fredrik-reinfeldt-swedish-way-civil-servants?_s=PM:OPINION) since the 90s.
Not like your (US) right at all:


Over dinner in a Stockholm restaurant, an impressively multiethnic and multiracial group of Swedish conservatives (the majority of the group were immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants) argue that less has changed than meets the eye. "Swedish values," they argue, still emphasize economic security over economic liberty.
His party is formally known as the Moderates, and he goes to great pains to reassure Swedes that the party will live up to its billing.

American conservatives might find Reinfeldt disappointingly unconfrontational.

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 10:04 AM
Not like your (US) right at all:

Oh no? They're doing pretty much what we've called for and what Tal complains about every day:


Between 1980 and 1992, Sweden lost ground relative to other rich countries, according to a McKinsey study. Since 2009, however, Sweden has one of the faster-growing economies in Western Europe. The growth has been led by the private sector, where jobs are multiplying at what Radio Sweden calls "a record pace."

Sweden's right turn started back in the early 1990s, but the turn is being institutionalized under the prime ministership of Fredrik Reinfeldt. Reinfeldt is a cautious conservative in the manner of Britain's David Cameron. His party is formally known as the Moderates, and he goes to great pains to reassure Swedes that the party will live up to its billing.

American conservatives might find Reinfeldt disappointingly unconfrontational. Yet in five years in office, he has repealed Sweden's wealth taxes and inheritance taxes. He has reduced the labor taxes that pushed almost all home repairs into the black market. He has championed a simple powerful idea: Work should pay better than benefits. He is prevailing.

As he prevails, he changes the country's political culture.

Imagine that, eliminate wealth and inheritance taxes while reducing labor taxes and the private sector exploded. Meanwhile, Obama is taking us the other direction and our economy is stagnant, only to get worse the more he turns left and as the true cost of Obamacare becomes apparent..

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 10:07 AM
So is Sweden a socialist/communist country or a capitalist one? I get confused with your labels.

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 02:17 PM
So is Sweden a socialist/communist country or a capitalist one? I get confused with your labels.

I didn't label them anything, you are the one who mentioned Sweden. Try to keep up.

speechlesstx
Sep 28, 2012, 02:46 PM
Here you go NK, here's your Socialist success story...


The Hugo Chávez cult is over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/hugo-chavez-cult-oil-venezuela)
Oil can no longer blind Venezuelans to their leader's failure. The flaws in Chávez's 21st-century socialism are all too clea

As Venezuelans get ready to head to the polls for the most closely fought presidential election of the past 14 years, one question is at the forefront of everyone's mind: does Hugo Chávez still have it? By "it", I mean his legendary, intense, emotional connection with the poor – a kind of attachment that has, for many, a feeling of religious fervour. Of faith.

"Chávez is the only one who has ever really cared about the poor" – you hear his supporters say it again and again, with real feeling, and now more than ever it's the centre of his pitch to voters.

Chávez: Heart of my Fatherland – the slogan turns up everywhere, right down to the water bottles given away to keep his supporters hydrated at rallies.

But 14 years on, as even his most hardcore supporters acknowledge, Chávez's experiment in 21st-century socialism isn't really working. After the chaotic nationalisation of most of the agro-industrial chain – from the farm to the supermarket – food shortages have become chronic, with various staples disappearing from shelves. Lines at subsidised government grocery shops are long, and particularly scarce commodities sell out almost the second they're delivered.

On closer inspection, the only thing that appears to be 21st century about Chávez's 21st-century socialism is the presidential Twitter account. The economy is still run along the same rigid lines that crippled eastern bloc economies for much of the 20th century. One after another, industries have been nationalised only to become outsized money-pits unable to produce the goods needed. The steel and cement industries can't produce enough to meet the country's housing needs; electric utilities have brought chronic blackouts throughout the country; and the phone company has failed to deliver adequate internet access. Venezuelans like to joke that Julian Assange passed over Venezuela for political asylum simply because the internet is so slow there.

Obama should steal that campaign slogan, "Obama: Heart of my Fatherland." I'm sure the cult of Obama would buy it... and we can be Venezuela.

paraclete
Sep 28, 2012, 04:11 PM
Here ya go NK, here's your Socialist success story...
Obama should steal that campaign slogan, "Obama: Heart of my Fatherland." I'm sure the cult of Obama would buy it...and we can be Venezuela.

Poor old Chavez he used the wrong model, nationalisation, state ownership of the means of production doesn't work, you tax business and the rich and support the poor otherwise you wind up with less due to lack of incentive. As long as tax isn't too high people will strive to earn more

Now BO knows you can do it, he has said so more than once, yes we can, pity he didn't define what it was, but from his actions I expect he means pay more tax

TUT317
Sep 28, 2012, 04:13 PM
Here ya go NK, here's your Socialist success story...





Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.

Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.


Tut

paraclete
Sep 28, 2012, 04:18 PM
Venezuela is a combination of socialism, democracy, totalitarianism and some small capitalism.

Far too complex to be slotted into the socialist pigeonhole.


Tut

None of the above are mutually exclusive. They don't understand socialism over there, they think it is communism. It is unfortunate that socialism can lead to totalitarianism but it can also lead in another direction

tomder55
Sep 28, 2012, 04:37 PM
The only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism... aks fascism .

NeedKarma
Sep 28, 2012, 04:43 PM
the only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism ...aks fascism .
So many "scary" labels in one post - I think you've outdone yourself this time! :D

paraclete
Sep 28, 2012, 05:21 PM
Well there you go one minute he is communist, the next he is fascist, there is a difference you know, by the way Fascism is right wing, what they have in common is they are both authoritarian.

This may help your sort it out
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&h=697&w=724&sz=181&tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi75M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=93&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum%26tbm%3Disch%26t bo%3Du&zoom=1&q=political+spectrum&usg=__Daa79m-f0uoYlPfRDYSe3iesBYk=&docid=usahwlB1e_gxiM&sa=X&ei=4j9mULf7J82higfYsIHYDw&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAw&dur=303

TUT317
Sep 28, 2012, 05:51 PM
the only thing democratic about the Chavez reign was the one vote one time aspect. But add the rest of the recipe socialism, totalitarianism and some state controlled capitalism and mix them all together and what you got is left wing State socialism ...aks fascism .


Tom, please give up this over simplistic linear explanation for politics. We've already been through all of that in a different post.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 28, 2012, 06:53 PM
No I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .

TUT317
Sep 28, 2012, 07:53 PM
no I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .


No, because liberalism had it roots in the 18th century. Not the 20th.


Tut

paraclete
Sep 28, 2012, 08:14 PM
Tom you just don't get it, anything other than laisez faire capitalism is anathema to you and yet such a system cannot exist, surely the last few years have taught you something

talaniman
Sep 28, 2012, 09:50 PM
Ithought the Swedish modelwas familiar

Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1843659,00.html)


"The Swedish success depended on four factors," he explains. Stockholm acted quickly, in open acknowledgement of the problems, and under a broad political agreement across the party spectrum. "Running parallel with these three factors," he says, "a new economic policy — new goals for inflation and the budget — was developed after the crisis."

Read more: Sweden's Model Approach to Financial Disaster - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1843659,00.html#ixzz27pam3Y5v)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

No "my way or the highway" mentality over there. It work because they work together and share the labor and the fruits.

TUT317
Sep 29, 2012, 01:41 AM
no I don't think I will .Y'all don't like that I challenge what has become accepted assumptions,but I can't help it that you ignore modern liberalism's fascist roots .


I didn't actually read you post carefully. You actually said, "modern liberalism's fascist roots". My original reply is not valid, so I'll address what you actually said.


Tom, this is even worse.

If you want to talk about the roots of modern liberalism we would be talking about the late 19th century. We mentioned it earlier or in a different post. You know- private property, rule of law, human rights, separation of the powers etc. All of this had its beginning with people such as Locke.

Fascism rejects all of these liberal ideas. Fascism is anti-individual. Are you trying to tell us that people such as Locke were really harbouring the beginnings of fascism?

Tut

tomder55
Sep 29, 2012, 02:55 AM
No ;you trace it back to Locke whereas I trace it's real roots back to the late 19th century,early
20th century . The modern liberal (as opposed to the classic liberal ) aka progressives do not believe in property rights.. they are big on positive rights paid for by someone else. The modern liberal doesn't necessarily want a state take over of the economy... they want government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. It's not the fault of their policy... oh no... it's the greedy private industry that screwed the pooch. It gives themselves credit when things go good ;and an instant scapegoat when they don't .
Modern liberals in the 1920s loved Mussolini and to a lesser extent Hitler.As an example ,such esteemed libs as W.E.B. Du Bois,considered Hitler as a man of the left. Du Bois had studied in Berlin from 1892 to 1894;and was a Germanophile.He travelled there again in 1936 ,the year of the Berlin Olympics ,and praised the Nazi leadership of the nation.He wrote that the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois said “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

This was a famous black progressive intellectual,and the founder of the civil rights movement ,and was a NAACP co-founder, who didn't even find anything wrong with the Nazi attitude toward black atheletes. But he was an equal opportunity progressive modern liberal. Pre-war he praised the central control of the Hitler regime... post war he praised Stalin's version of central control.

Influential modern liberal ,humorist and political commentator Will Rogers ;after visiting Italy said of the fascist dictator: I'm pretty high on that bird.” He wrote that "Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,”.....“that is, if you have the right dictator.”

H. G. Wells is considered one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century. He said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists”....“enlightened Nazis.” He wrote of a “'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” He said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

And it began in this country even before the 1920s . Woodrow Wilson ,long considered one of the US most progressive Presidents was a devoted disciple of Georg Hegel .Wilson ,like Obama, attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president.(there is no academic writing by Obama on record ;but he is on record in interviews ).

Even before that ,many of the American progressive movement around the end of the 19th century were being taught in liberal institutions like Harvard ;the 'positives ' of eugenics . Roosevelt and his contemporaries were big on "Aryan Superiority".Roosevelt actually ran against Wilson in 1914 because in his view Wilson was not progressive enough(he also rejected the views of conservative William Howard Taft ,his party's nominee) .

There are many other examples I could source ;but you get my point. By the end of WWII the left had shed it's overt support because as HG Wells pointed out ,it had become a symbol of everything undesirable . So they quickly did some revisionism and pegged it to the right and taught the next generation that in the classroom without accurately bringing up their early embrace.

TUT317
Sep 29, 2012, 03:47 AM
no ;you trace it back to Locke whereas I trace it's real roots back to the late 19th century,early
20th century . The modern liberal (as opposed to the classic liberal ) aka progressives do not believe in property rights ..they are big on positive rights paid for by someone else. The modern liberal doesn't necessarily want a state take over of the economy ....they want government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. It's not the fault of their policy ...oh no ...it's the greedy private industry that screwed the pooch. It gives themselves credit when things go good ;and an instant scapegoat when they don't .
Modern liberals in the 1920s loved Mussolini and to a lesser extent Hitler.As an example ,such esteemed libs as W.E.B. Du Bois,considered Hitler as a man of the left. Du Bois had studied in Berlin from 1892 to 1894;and was a Germanophile.He travelled there again in 1936 ,the year of the Berlin Olympics ,and praised the Nazi leadership of the nation.He wrote that the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois said “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

This was a famous black progressive intellectual,and the founder of the civil rights movement ,and was a NAACP co-founder, who didn't even find anything wrong with the Nazi attitude toward black atheletes. But he was an equal opportunity progressive modern liberal. Pre-war he praised the central control of the Hitler regime .....post war he praised Stalin's version of central control.

Influential modern liberal ,humorist and political commentator Will Rogers ;after visting Italy said of the fascist dictator: I'm pretty high on that bird.” He wrote that "Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,”.....“that is, if you have the right dictator.”

H. G. Wells is considered one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century. He said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists”....“enlightened Nazis.” He wrote of a “'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” He said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

And it began in this country even before the 1920s . Woodrow Wilson ,long considered one of the US most progressive Presidents was a devoted disciple of Georg Hegel .Wilson ,like Obama, attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president.(there is no academic writing by Obama on record ;but he is on record in interviews ).

Even before that ,many of the American progressive movement around the end of the 19th century were being taught in liberal institutions like Harvard ;the 'positives ' of eugenics . Roosevelt and his contemporaries were big on "Aryan Superiority".Roosevelt actually ran against Wilson in 1914 because in his view Wilson was not progressive enough(he also rejected the views of conservative William Howard Taft ,his party's nominee) .

There are many other examples I could source ;but you get my point. By the end of WWII the left had shed it's overt support because as HG Wells pointed out ,it had become a symbol of everything undesirable . So they quickly did some revisionism and pegged it to the right and taught the next generation that in the classroom without accurately bringing up their early embrace.



Lets clarify the first point... No, I don't trace it back to Locke- most scholars trace the roots of modern liberalism back to people such as Locke.

Tom, you need to get out of Goldberg and read more widely. Most of the above is an American perspective on liberalism. There are actually other academic sources from other countries that present a different understanding. The American understanding of liberalism is not necessarily the world's understanding of liberalism. If ,as you say, you can cite many other sources then how about some scholarly articles from other countries.

Lastly: Goldberg's interpretation of H.G. Wells is not the reason why liberalism/socialism split from fascism. It was because fascism was anti-individualism. The are incompatible in a number of important areas.

Tut

paraclete
Sep 29, 2012, 03:53 AM
Let's face it he wouldn't know liberalism if it came up and bit him on the bum

tomder55
Sep 29, 2012, 04:06 AM
Goldberg is just one of the more contemporaries who have made the comparison. Of course my perspective is of the US progressive left. These are the ones who are making 'change we can believe in" or other lefty catch phrases like the President's current slogan 'Forward'. It is a fundamental reorganization of US society from the individual to the collective reinforced by strong positive rights paid for by someone else.

TUT317
Sep 29, 2012, 04:06 AM
Let's face it he wouldn't know liberalism if it came up and bit him on the bum

Yes. All Tom has giver us so far is an American commentary on liberalism. In other words, the idea that liberalism can be judged as a reflection; or in light of American political institutions.


Tut

P.S. Don't worry about what I just said. Tom confirmed it in the above post. I missed his response.

speechlesstx
Sep 29, 2012, 06:16 AM
Since the thread concerns American politics I would think the reference to US progressives would be a given.

paraclete
Sep 29, 2012, 03:39 PM
Tom just linked liberalism to racism, as I said Tom you don't have any idea, it is the liberals of your country who have headed the anti-racism thrust of recent times, without them blacks would still be travelling in the back of the bus. What is wrong with your country isn't liberalism, it is the money grubbing conservatives who want it all, elitists who think the country belongs to them

tomder55
Sep 29, 2012, 04:48 PM
Well no I didn't... but the fact is that the Dem libs are late comers to civil rights... and they get it wrong.. They think having the minorities permanent wards of the state is a good idea. Conservatives don't . We think that is slavery by other means. .

paraclete
Sep 29, 2012, 05:00 PM
SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER MEANS, Tom you make me laugh, what is your capitalist system but slavery by any other means. Minimum wages, control of both the means and place of production

talaniman
Sep 29, 2012, 05:22 PM
It's the plutocrats who have hoarded the wealth they redistributed from the working man that's holding this country back. You know those elites that have changed their names to job creators and taken supply side economics to new lows while ignoring demand.

That's a flawed system of capitalism that creates NO jobs, No value to the society, and blames everybody but themselves for screwing things up. The slaves are the ones that serve and protect these parasites on society.

tomder55
Sep 29, 2012, 07:34 PM
SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER MEANS, Tom you make me laugh, what is your capitalist system but slavery by any other means. minimum wages, control of both the means and place of production

Read upon the life of the slaves and get back to me on that. Geeze... you make me laugh. Here's a hint about the difference
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JJm2UF4suYQ/UA07_iI_CnI/AAAAAAAALOg/YXRODxArN7U/s400/whipping+scars.jpg

Athos
Sep 29, 2012, 07:35 PM
Was Eisenhower a dedicated conscious member of the Communist conspiracy?

Tom?

talaniman
Sep 29, 2012, 07:40 PM
read upon the life of the slaves and get back to me on that. geeze ...you make me laugh. Here's a hint about the difference
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JJm2UF4suYQ/UA07_iI_CnI/AAAAAAAALOg/YXRODxArN7U/s400/whipping+scars.jpg

Just because the whips are money and they don't leave scars doesn't mean capitalism isn't slavery.

paraclete
Sep 29, 2012, 11:34 PM
Just because the whips are money and they don't leave scars doesn't mean capitalism isn't slavery.

Well said Tal but the whips are more than money, capitalism is slavery just as communism is, there is an illusion of free will, but anyone who has run on the wheel knows the truth

softtail08
Sep 30, 2012, 12:08 AM
There is not difference between any of the political people;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;christ Obama told the Russian wait until after the elections---------wait for what --selling out the USA/ u need to pay more attentions or get an open mind

softtail08
Sep 30, 2012, 12:13 AM
Holy crap I wish I were that rich all my life.

Here's where he grew up: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomfield_Hills,_Michigan)

A nice life if you can get it. Never ever having to worry about money.

He Worked hard for that money. It was NOT given to him. Yeah it would be nice to get all that money--

TUT317
Sep 30, 2012, 01:24 AM
Goldberg is just one of the more contemporaries who have made the comparison.



Yes, comparison is close to the right word. Socialism and liberalism are similar to fascism in a number of way. In exactly the same way there are many differences.

One of the reasons Goldberg probably wrote the book was that he was sick of the incorrect assertion that conservatism is fascism.Conservatism AKA fascism might be familiar.

There are some elements of conservatism that can be seen as fascist, but there are as many elements of conservatism that are completely different. Any attempt by the left or the right to paint the other is being the same is nonsense.


If you were to read the literature you would probably also discover that fascism is more than likely a phenomenon that existed in a particular historical epoch.

Tut

TUT317
Sep 30, 2012, 01:31 AM
Since the thread concerns American politics I would think the reference to US progressives would be a given.


Yes such references are important. In exactly the same way other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 30, 2012, 02:18 AM
And who is the arbiter of 'credible sources ' ? By the way before Goldberg ,my position had been stated by Ayn Rand (yeah I know ,another discredited source)


It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.

Rand 'The Objectivist'

TUT317
Sep 30, 2012, 03:42 AM
and who is the arbiter of 'credible sources ' ? btw before Goldberg ,my position had been stated by Ayn Rand (yeah I know ,another discredited source)


Rand 'The Objectivist'

Before we move on how about we address the above.

You still don't know me very well do you? Where have I said that Goldberg is not a credible source? Where have I said that Rand is not a credible source?

Tut

paraclete
Sep 30, 2012, 03:46 AM
Ann Rand you couldn't get a bigger liberal, communist even, and your attitudes are shaped by this

"Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed"
Do you feel oppressed Tom as your heroine felt oppressed

tomder55
Sep 30, 2012, 05:58 AM
Me ? No... but I can see where the libs have " recast " the successful as evil and thus make them oppressed when the libs call the political shots.

By the way.. the only thing close to Rand and liberal or communist is her atheism.

tomder55
Sep 30, 2012, 06:02 AM
Before we move on how about we address the above.

You still don't know me very well do you? Where have I said that Goldberg is not a credible source? Where have I said that Rand is not a credible source?

Tut

Not directly by you did indict Goldberg by implication

Yes such references are important. In exactly the same way other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source.

TUT317
Sep 30, 2012, 08:19 AM
Not directly by you did indict Goldberg by implication

Firstly
In order to accuse someone of being not credible one would have to actually say, imply, implicate them in some way as not being credible.

Perhaps some evidence of me saying or implicating Goldberg as not a credible source would be in order.

Secondly
What you actually forgot to say was that my quote was in response to Steve's post, not yours.

Steve said

"Since the thread concerns American politics I think the reference to US progressives would be a given".


My direct response to Steve's post was

"Yes, such references are important. In exactly the same way as other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source".

Perhaps you should drop this no-win situation and we can move on.

Tut