Man who grew up in the USSR destroys OWS socialist..

[Comunitee]

It is not a redistribution of wealth to pay for the government budget from taxes. It is redistribution of wealth when the government gives that tax money to people as means-tested welfare. That is taking from one person and giving it to another based entirely on "means". It is "from each according to his means to each according to their need". It is classic Marxism. The fact that poor people who pay no taxes get the same protection from our military that everyone else gets isn't wealth redistribution. The fact that they get all the services taxpayers get AND some of their money, too, is the wealth redistribution.

You don't like that they pay no taxes? Then ask yourself why they pay no taxes. It is because they don't make enough money to pay taxes. You want them to pay taxes? Then pay them enough to qualify.

If a job paid more than welfare, welfare would not be necessary. If it were easy to get a job, unemployment insurance would not be necessary. If everybody made enough money to making voting Republican in their best interests, the Democratic Party would not be necessary -- at least, not for economic reasons.

So why is the Republican Party? In theory, it's to make sure that the Democratic Party does not go too far. But when was the last time the Democratic Party went far enough? Probably in 1965, when LBJ still cared more about the Great Society than he did about showing people how tough on Communism he was.

 

[keith]

Yes, wealth is redistributed every time an economic transaction occurs. There are functions of government that most of us recognize are needed and must be paid out of government revenues. There are also programs whose primary purpose is wealth redistribution which many of us oppose.

 

[keith]

But when was the last time the Democratic Party went far enough? Probably in 1965, when LBJ still cared more about the Great Society than he did about showing people how tough on Communism he was.

The result of those Great Society programs was the destruction of the urban black family and a soaring crime rate that proceeded from that.

 

[Papa bull]

You don't like that they pay no taxes?

How can you come away with that? Out of everything I said, how can you come away with something that stupid? I was explaining wealth redistribution and explaining how paying for the military isn't it. I guess what someone actually says isn't as important as your talking points, so no matter what someone says you pretend they gave you a launchpad for them.

 

[Papa bull]

Yes, wealth is redistributed every time an economic transaction occurs.

That is incorrect. I give you 1500.00. You give me an ounce of gold. We didn't redistribute wealth. I give you a dozen ears of corn and you give me a loaf of bread. We didn't redistribute wealth. Financial transactions and trade are not wealth redistribution in any overt sense because unless you made a foolish purchase, you are just as well off after a purchase as before, it's just that you converted currency to something else of value that also counts toward your "wealth". Wealth isn't just currency.

And wealth redistribution isn't merely engaging in trade. Trade may appear to "redistribute wealth" but it's not really a wealth redistribution mechanism at all. Wealth, for the most part, is created. Wealth redistribution is seizing wealth from one and giving it to another. There is no exchange of value. There is no trade. One loses. The other gains. And the one that loses is the one that built the wealth and is also the one that has no say in the matter. Wealth redistribution is an abomination.

 

[jonny5]

Taxation is redistribution of wealth! Redistribution of income/wealth is the transfer of money/wealth from an individual(s) to others or other organization by taxation, welfare, charity, or other social mechanisms. It can be anything such as welfare, paying money for roads, military, police, fire department, food stamps, education. Thats all redistribution of wealth.


Thats just called welfare. Which is one of the many forms of "redistribution of wealth".

Agree to disagree.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Agree to disagree.

Or just dont accept basic facts.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth in some form or another.
And no he does not believe in central control of the economy. True he wants more regulation of parts of the economy but so do republicans they also beleive some parts of the economy should be regulated but he does not believe that the state or any other form of government should overwhelmingly control the economy.

You cant be "part socialist"...

I don't believe in redistribution of wealth.

Yes Obama believes in central control of the economy - what do you think the whole point of Obamacare is? The point of Obamacare is to regulate industry via regulations and "sin taxes" on products the government deems "harmful you your health."

 

[Grand Mal]

Nice try but they where liberals in the classic sense modern politics have flipped clasic liberalism is closer to conservatism than modern liberalism.

Nice try but you can't adjust the definition of words to suit your agenda.

 

[Grand Mal]

Historically pigignorant. The people who threw that tea into the harbor were liberatarians not liberals.

Liberlism's core belief is that gov't is an agent of the common good, thus more is better.Totally, completely opposite of what the original tea partiers ( and almost all the founders) believed.

Extremely wrong.

"The revolutionaries of the American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism."

The American Revolution was fomented by liberals and opposed by conservatives. Liberals were fighting against royalty, aristocracy and imperialism, conservatives were supporting the status quo and booking passage north to the Canadian colonies.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Nice try but you can't adjust the definition of words to suit your agenda.

No one is defining anything...

"liberals" are NOT "liberal" -- If you were liberal you wouldn't be trying to ban the Second Amendment and put restrictions on others such as the First and Tenth.... No liberal in their right mind would look at the Bill of Rights with contempt...

Liberals are liberal with their fascism and that is about it....

 

[Kobie]

No one is defining anything...

"liberals" are NOT "liberal" -- If you were liberal you wouldn't be trying to ban the Second Amendment and put restrictions on others such as the First and Tenth.... No liberal in their right mind would look at the Bill of Rights with contempt...

Liberals are liberal with their fascism and that is about it....

Anyone who calls modern American liberals "fascist" has no idea what actual fascism is.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Extremely wrong.

"The revolutionaries of the American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism."

The American Revolution was fomented by liberals and opposed by conservatives. Liberals were fighting against royalty, aristocracy and imperialism, conservatives were supporting the status quo and booking passage north to the Canadian colonies.

The "revolutionaries" were classical liberals opposed to the tyranny happening in Europe at the time.

I suppose back then the "conservatives" were the ones fighting on behalf of the crown...

Presently, progressive liberals are the ones fighting classical liberals and classical liberal ideas such as the Bill of Rights while supporting tyranny and their "progressive" form of government that doesn't resemble our founding ideas.... The roles have reversed.

Progressives are fascists and so are Neo-Cons while libertarians, tea party and some republicans are classical liberals.....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Anyone who calls modern American liberals "fascist" has no idea what actual fascism is.

You mean like forcing people into buying healthcare, banning happy meals and soda, arresting people for speaking out against the establishment, attempting to ban guns, attempting to limit free speech, attempting to eradicate a specific religion from society, forcing people to accept others??

The progressive fascists can call themselves "liberal" all they want but they're anything but....

They're just as bad and tolerant as Nazi's....

I suppose "liberal" just sounds a lot better than "fascist" tho, just like "climate change" sounds a lot better than "global warming."

 

[Kobie]

You mean like forcing people into buying healthcare, banning happy meals and soda, arresting people for speaking out against the establishment, attempting to ban guns, attempting to limit free speech, attempting to eradicate a specific religion from society, forcing people to accept others??

Everything bolded is fictional.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Everything bolded is fictional.

Apparently you just don't want to believe it when they commit those crimes against the Bill of Rights or attempt to...

You're either not informed, in denial or are a fascist yourself...

 

[Grand Mal]

No one is defining anything...

"liberals" are NOT "liberal" -- If you were liberal you wouldn't be trying to ban the Second Amendment and put restrictions on others such as the First and Tenth.... No liberal in their right mind would look at the Bill of Rights with contempt...

Liberals are liberal with their fascism and that is about it....

I'm trying to ban the second amendment?
You need to take another look around, buddy. Liberals are liberal, conservatives are conservative. You can't cherry-pick from liberalism what appeals to you and declare that liberals are what's left. Or maybe you can, and reduce your participation to saporific bumper-sticker platitudes. You think liberals are fascists? You just outed yourself, education-wise.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Apparently you just don't want to believe it when they commit those crimes against the Bill of Rights or attempt to...

You're either not informed, in denial or are a fascist yourself...

you don't have any experience of what it was like to live under the Nazi regime. the only people who truely understood what it was like are those who actually experienced it . any Nazi comparison has to be justified by evidence of a atrocity that equals or surpasses the cold, calculated, deliberate extermination of entire groups of people.

so what has liberalism done to rival the holocaust?

 

[Kobie]

Apparently you just don't want to believe it when they commit those crimes against the Bill of Rights or attempt to...

You're either not informed, in denial or are a fascist yourself...

Or maybe you're just delusional. Seriously, of the stuff you just listed, all but one is completely made up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm trying to ban the second amendment?
You need to take another look around, buddy. Liberals are liberal, conservatives are conservative. You can't cherry-pick from liberalism what appeals to you and declare that liberals are what's left. Or maybe you can, and reduce your participation to saporific bumper-sticker platitudes. You think liberals are fascists? You just outed yourself, education-wise.

Well if people only knew the difference... If liberals were smart they would call themselves fascists...

I don't know about you as an individual but "liberals" as a collective party want to ban guns.... Not to mention liberals as a collective political party at the state and federal level have been successful at banning lots of individual freedoms...

 

[Kobie]

Well if people only knew the difference... If liberals were smart they would call themselves fascists...

I don't know about you as an individual but "liberals" as a collective party want to ban guns.... Not to mention liberals as a collective political party at the state and federal level have been successful at banning lots of individual freedoms...

No, they don't. That's absurd.

You're taking a few proposed laws, most of which gained little to no traction even among other liberals, and extrapolating them to an absurd degree.

 

[Grand Mal]

Well if people only knew the difference... If liberals were smart they would call themselves fascists...

I don't know about you as an individual but "liberals" as a collective party want to ban guns.... Not to mention liberals as a collective political party at the state and federal level have been successful at banning lots of individual freedoms...

Liberals wrote your constitution.
The biggest recent afront to your individual freedoms is the Patriot Act (hard to argue with that title, huh?). Who wrote that?

 

[Mr.Nick]

you don't have any experience of what it was like to live under the Nazi regime. the only people who truely understood what it was like are those who actually experienced it . any Nazi comparison has to be justified by evidence of a atrocity that equals or surpasses the cold, calculated, deliberate extermination of entire groups of people.

so what has liberalism done to rival the holocaust?

Few alive today can claim they lived under a Nazi regime ... However when our Bill of Rights is being attacked and circumvented or overlooked as if the document meant nothing while fascists are dreaming up new things to ban everyday and how to turn ever citizen into the perfect obedient citizen instead of embracing freedom and liberty....

Progressives are Nazi's - they're embracing the murder of unborn babies and creating a totalitarian cult no different than Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot et al.

Progressives cannot respect dissent - they punish dissent the IRS is a perfect example of that....

Denying what I shows you're either promoting this partisan fascist ****, are ignorant to it or are in denial.

BTW, I'm a former progressive and it's exactly what I'm talking about that made me leave the party - the dishonesty and strategic communist planning, anti-freedom and love of Marxist revolutionaries is what made me leave...

I've been to 20-30 progressive protests and meetings and they're all the same - their goal is to turn the US into Cuba - not though armed revolution but through infiltration of government and PROGRESS...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Liberals wrote your constitution.
The biggest recent afront to your individual freedoms is the Patriot Act (hard to argue with that title, huh?). Who wrote that?

Dude... I'm certain I'm more knowledgeable in history than you - especially early American history.... I clearly stated several dozens of times on these boards that Classical Liberals wrote the Bill of Rights...

Why the hell do you think I never call a "liberal" liberal?? I refer to them as progressives because I believe they're fascists... Yeah they're progressive but they're certainly not "liberal."

 

[SheWolf]

I started watching the video and realized it's over 20 minutes long. And Nick is telling us to watch it. I mean, it may not be as groundbreaking as he claims. I don't think I'll waste my 20 minutes. No thanks.

Yea ive watched a lot of this guys videos, but he also himself seems clueless. He basically thinks Obama is a socialist... So yea.. Cool he is from the USSR and left but he himself is a nut thinking that Obama is a socialist.