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

[Grand Mal]

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."

You call liberals progressive because you think they're fascists. Your argument isn't with me, it's with Merriam-Webster.

 

[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?

No ****....

Apparently you have never read one of my posts...

 

[Mr.Nick]

You call liberals progressive because you think they're fascists. Your argument isn't with me, it's with Merriam-Webster.

Fine, you're one of the 45% of democrats who believe government doesn't has enough power...

 

[Grand Mal]

Fine, you're one of the 45% of democrats who believe government doesn't has enough power...

While you're grappling with Merriam-Webster, look up 'non sequitur'.

 

[Fenton]

Depends on how you define it. As far as personal freedoms (speech,
drugs, association, prostitution, due process) go, I could be considered "libertarian." As far as economics goes, I am pretty much a Keynesian, although I do recognize that any school of economic thought can be taken too far.

I mostly identify as a "liberal" because I find the current state of American "conservatism" to be basically a dumpster fire.

Then you've chosen your ideology based solely on misunderstandings.

A misunderstanding of Conservatism and economic principles.

And FYI, a "living breathing document" by definiton cannot be a Constitution.

 

[KLATTU]

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.....

Yeah, the terms liberal and conservative have many different definitions don't they.

While the founders were adamantlly oppsed to tyranny, they most assuredly were NOT in favor a big, powerful central Government.
Maybe Hamilton, but few others.
A big powerful central Government is THE defining characteristic of the modern day liberal or progressive or whatver you want to call them.

 

[Comunitee]

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.

Typical right-wing blather: Every time a liberal uses the truth to smack you in the face, you call it "talking points," as if that invalidates the truths they contain.

We HAVE redistribution of wealth in this country. It goes from the people who work to the people who don't -- from the people who make the CEOs' vast wealth possible to the CEOs.

Let me explain it to you in a way so simple, even Ted Cruz could understand it. (Not that he'd accept it.):

Imagine a business lord who took in $40,000,000 last year. Forty million. Suppose he pays about $10 million of it in taxes. I ask him to pay an extra $5 million in taxes, so that his employees will have health insurance and won't need "Obamacare." Will he object? Of course. Can he afford it? Of course. He'll never even miss it. You could confiscate every penny he has, and with his next paycheck -- at 50 weeks a year, presuming he didn't also have investment income, it would be $800,000. At 40 hours a week, that's $20,000 an hour. With one hour's pay, he could buy food for himself and his family, buy gasoline for his car, and maybe even make a needed repair on his huge house. He wouldn't suffer.

Now imagine a man who works for him, on the factory floor. He took in $40,000 last year. Not forty million, but forty thousand. He makes in one year what his boss makes in two hours. At 50 weeks a year, and he doesn't make enough money to invest so he doesn't also have investment income, his paycheck would be $800. Suppose, out of that $40,000, he pays about $4,000 in taxes. That leaves him $36,000 over the course of a year -- $3,000 a month, $750 a week. Now, would you insist that he, and everybody else in his tax bracket, pay double his taxes ($8,000) to cut his boss' taxes by one-quarter ($2.5 million)? That would leave him with $18,000 a year, $1,500 a month, $375 a week. $375 a week isn't a lot to keep one person's expenses in check, and it is far from enough for a family.

Taxing the many who are poor to enrich the few who are rich. That is redistribution of wealth. It is reverse socialism. It is cruel. It is un-Christian. And the American people showed in the 2012 election that they will not accept it.

 

[Papa bull]

Typical right-wing blather: Every time a liberal uses the truth to smack you in the face, you call it "talking points," as if that invalidates the truths they contain.

We HAVE redistribution of wealth in this country. It goes from the people who work to the people who don't -- from the people who make the CEOs' vast wealth possible to the CEOs.

Let me explain it to you in a way so simple, even Ted Cruz could understand it. (Not that he'd accept it.):

Imagine a business lord who took in $40,000,000 last year. Forty million. Suppose he pays about $10 million of it in taxes. I ask him to pay an extra $5 million in taxes, so that his employees will have health insurance and won't need "Obamacare." Will he object? Of course. Can he afford it? Of course. He'll never even miss it. You could confiscate every penny he has, and with his next paycheck -- at 50 weeks a year, presuming he didn't also have investment income, it would be $800,000. At 40 hours a week, that's $20,000 an hour. With one hour's pay, he could buy food for himself and his family, buy gasoline for his car, and maybe even make a needed repair on his huge house. He wouldn't suffer.

Now imagine a man who works for him, on the factory floor. He took in $40,000 last year. Not forty million, but forty thousand. He makes in one year what his boss makes in two hours. At 50 weeks a year, and he doesn't make enough money to invest so he doesn't also have investment income, his paycheck would be $800. Suppose, out of that $40,000, he pays about $4,000 in taxes. That leaves him $36,000 over the course of a year -- $3,000 a month, $750 a week. Now, would you insist that he, and everybody else in his tax bracket, pay double his taxes ($8,000) to cut his boss' taxes by one-quarter ($2.5 million)? That would leave him with $18,000 a year, $1,500 a month, $375 a week. $375 a week isn't a lot to keep one person's expenses in check, and it is far from enough for a family.

Taxing the many who are poor to enrich the few who are rich. That is redistribution of wealth. It is reverse socialism. It is cruel. It is un-Christian. And the American people showed in the 2012 election that they will not accept it.

Nothing can sway you from posting your talking points, apparently. Not even a discussion where they don't fit.

 

[KLATTU]

Taxing the many who are poor to enrich the few who are rich. .

and of course that is not at all what happens in this country. The rich pay a massively disproportionate share of the fedral tax bill. And people do not get rich becuase the poor are taxed, because by and large,they aren't.

Your whole concept of people make money is just warped.

 

[Comunitee]

Typical right-wing blather: Every time a liberal uses the truth to smack you in the face, you call it "talking points," as if that invalidates the truths they contain.

Nothing can sway you from posting your talking points, apparently. Not even a discussion where they don't fit.

You did it again. You used the term "talking points." You said "they don't fit," which is a foolish opinion, but you did not challenge their truths, because you can't.

 

[Comunitee]

Taxing the many who are poor to enrich the few who are rich.

and of course that is not at all what happens in this country. The rich pay a massively disproportionate share of the fedral tax bill. And people do not get rich becuase the poor are taxed, because by and large,they aren't.

The hell they aren't! Sales tax. Payroll taxes. This is why "the flat tax" and "the fair tax" are the most unfair taxes that could ever be: They hit those least able to pay them.

 

[Fenton]

Taxing the many who are poor to
enrich the few who are rich.


The hell they aren't! Sales tax. Payroll taxes. This is why "the flat tax" and "the fair tax" are the most unfair taxes that could ever be: They hit those least able to pay them.

Payroll taxes get returned and then some if the worker has children that comply with the EIC.

The other drek you're responsible for is just left wing boiler plate nonsense.

The "eat the rich" narrative that only interest the most gullible among us.

Fellow liberals.

 

[Comunitee]

Payroll taxes get returned and then some if the worker has children that comply with the EIC.

The other drek you're responsible for is just left wing boiler plate nonsense.

The "eat the rich" narrative that only interest the most gullible among us.

Fellow liberals.

You get told by conservatives that they can be trusted to balance the budget, grow the economy, avoid scandals, and protect this nation from foreign threats, and you believe them, and you vote for them...

And you call LIBERALS gullible?

 

[Fenton]

You get told by conservatives that
they can be trusted to balance the budget, grow the economy, avoid scandals, and protect this nation from foreign threats, and you believe them, and you vote for them...

And you call LIBERALS gullible?

Not just gullible but poorly informed.
Stupid even

Our path has been determined by the least knowledgable of our voters in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

They actually bought into the false narratives and plattitudes and elected a Jr Senator with radical anti American ties.

Let me give you an example of low information voters . You mentioned balancing the budget right ?

A Republican Congress did that after it sent Clinton a budget 5 times. He finally signed it after throwing hissy fits. Now dishonest Liberals take credit for it

Oh and Clinton lowered Capital Gains Taxes too and gave Hallibirton their first " no bid " contract when he needed a diversion away from his perjuring.

It would seem some things never change. Democrats lying under oath that is. But its the Republicans that are corrupt ? Lol...

Hillary ( lying useless bitch ) lied right to the faces of the parents who lost their sons in Benghazi. Remember ? Told them something about a video.

As far as keeping this Country safe ( I assume you're talking about 9/11 ) let me direct you to one of Clintons corrupt Fannie Mae appointees Jamie Gorelick and her " Gorelick Wall".

See how much information you lack ?

I bet you blame Bush for the 2008 Collapse too. Wow you ARE misinformed aren't you ? Yes your limited thats for sure but you need to stop blaming it on Conservatives and stop buying into the nonsensical false narratives the Democrats pump out.

Our economy has never been as sick as it is now and that with 4.5 years under Obama.

7 trillion in new sttuctural debt and rising poverty levels tell the truth as you libs try in vain to blame everybody but the people that are responsible. Yourself.

 

[Papa bull]

Typical right-wing blather: Every time a liberal uses the truth to smack you in the face, you call it "talking points," as if that invalidates the truths they contain.



You did it again. You used the term "talking points." You said "they don't fit," which is a foolish opinion, but you did not challenge their truths, because you can't.

Follow a conversation and make remarks that follow instead of ignoring what was said and posting your non sequiturs and we can talk. It does not appear to me that you are willing to do this.

 

[Papa bull]

Typical right-wing blather: Every time a liberal uses the truth to smack you in the face, you call it "talking points," as if that invalidates the truths they contain.

We HAVE redistribution of wealth in this country. It goes from the people who work to the people who don't -- from the people who make the CEOs' vast wealth possible to the CEOs.

Let me explain it to you in a way so simple, even Ted Cruz could understand it. (Not that he'd accept it.):

Imagine a business lord who took in $40,000,000 last year. Forty million. Suppose he pays about $10 million of it in taxes. I ask him to pay an extra $5 million in taxes, so that his employees will have health insurance and won't need "Obamacare." Will he object? Of course. Can he afford it? Of course. He'll never even miss it. You could confiscate every penny he has, and with his next paycheck -- at 50 weeks a year, presuming he didn't also have investment income, it would be $800,000. At 40 hours a week, that's $20,000 an hour. With one hour's pay, he could buy food for himself and his family, buy gasoline for his car, and maybe even make a needed repair on his huge house. He wouldn't suffer.

Now imagine a man who works for him, on the factory floor. He took in $40,000 last year. Not forty million, but forty thousand. He makes in one year what his boss makes in two hours. At 50 weeks a year, and he doesn't make enough money to invest so he doesn't also have investment income, his paycheck would be $800. Suppose, out of that $40,000, he pays about $4,000 in taxes. That leaves him $36,000 over the course of a year -- $3,000 a month, $750 a week. Now, would you insist that he, and everybody else in his tax bracket, pay double his taxes ($8,000) to cut his boss' taxes by one-quarter ($2.5 million)? That would leave him with $18,000 a year, $1,500 a month, $375 a week. $375 a week isn't a lot to keep one person's expenses in check, and it is far from enough for a family.

Taxing the many who are poor to enrich the few who are rich. That is redistribution of wealth. It is reverse socialism. It is cruel. It is un-Christian. And the American people showed in the 2012 election that they will not accept it.

No matter how you try to warp this in your mind, the poor are not being taxed and the money being given to the rich. The reverse is happening and all your justification about how much more the rich can afford just validates any claims that you support and propose wealth redistribution. You want money to be taken from the rich and given to the poor and, perversely, you argue that if enough isn't taken from the rich and given to the poor to suit you, then it's somehow taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

It's stupid and it's dishonest.

 

[Comunitee]

Not just gullible but poorly informed.
Stupid even

Our path has been determined by the least knowledgable of our voters in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

They actually bought into the false narratives and plattitudes and elected a Jr Senator with radical anti American ties.

Let me give you an example of low information voters . You mentioned balancing the budget right ?

A Republican Congress did that after it sent Clinton a budget 5 times. He finally signed it after throwing hissy fits. Now dishonest Liberals take credit for it

Oh and Clinton lowered Capital Gains Taxes too and gave Hallibirton their first " no bid " contract when he needed a diversion away from his perjuring.

It would seem some things never change. Democrats lying under oath that is. But its the Republicans that are corrupt ? Lol...

Hillary ( lying useless bitch ) lied right to the faces of the parents who lost their sons in Benghazi. Remember ? Told them something about a video.

As far as keeping this Country safe ( I assume you're talking about 9/11 ) let me direct you to one of Clintons corrupt Fannie Mae appointees Jamie Gorelick and her " Gorelick Wall".

See how much information you lack ?

I bet you blame Bush for the 2008 Collapse too. Wow you ARE misinformed aren't you ? Yes your limited thats for sure but you need to stop blaming it on Conservatives and stop buying into the nonsensical false narratives the Democrats pump out.

Our economy has never been as sick as it is now and that with 4.5 years under Obama.

7 trillion in new sttuctural debt and rising poverty levels tell the truth as you libs try in vain to blame everybody but the people that are responsible. Yourself.

Wow...
A junior Senator with radical anti-American ties? That's Ted Cruz.

The Republican Congress did NOT balance the budget. The liberal Democratic President Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress and NO Republican votes at all, cut the deficit in half in 2 years. The other half, with a Republican Congress? It took 4 years, because they wanted to cut taxes, which, as every intelligent person accepts, INCREASES the deficit. Clinton balanced the budget, not Gingrich and his wackos (who have grown up to become what passes for moderates in that party).

Democrats lie under oath? What about all those Republicans who testified about Iraq? Or do I have to go back to Ollie North?

Hillary never, EVER lied about Benghazi. Period. In contrast, there were 13 "Benghazis" under Bush. Not one hearing was held about any of them.

Yes, I blame Bush for the 2008 collapse. He was "president" then. His policies caused it. His policies also caused the recession that began in 2001 -- and, for the bottom 99 percent, never really ended.

"Our economy has never been as sick as it is now"? When Bush left office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. From the time Obama's first budget took effect, we have gained jobs every month. Housing prices have recovered. The auto industry is doing better than it has since the Sixties.

Vice President Biden summed up the Obama Presidency best: "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive."

What summed up the Bush Presidency best? Two million people on Inauguration Day, there as much to tell Bush, "And STAY out!" as to welcome Obama.

Conservatism doesn't work. Liberalism works.

 

[Comunitee]

No matter how you try to warp this in your mind, the poor are not being taxed and the money being given to the rich. The reverse is happening and all your justification about how much more the rich can afford just validates any claims that you support and propose wealth redistribution. You want money to be taken from the rich and given to the poor and, perversely, you argue that if enough isn't taken from the rich and given to the poor to suit you, then it's somehow taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

It's stupid and it's dishonest.

The poor ARE being taxed. The rich ARE being subsidized with this. They don't need it. The poor do.

A conservative calling a liberal "stupid" and "dishonest" is like a biker saying a Marine needs a haircut.

 

[Papa bull]

The poor ARE being taxed. The rich ARE being subsidized with this. They don't need it. The poor do.

A conservative calling a liberal "stupid" and "dishonest" is like a biker saying a Marine needs a haircut.

There's no room for discussion with you since you're stuck on asserting something that is false at face value. The government is not taking from the poor and giving to the rich but I don't even know why I'm stating the obvious again just so you can say it's a lie. There's no way to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place, so more attempts at discussion are pointless. Bye.

 

[Kobie]

Then you've chosen your ideology based solely on misunderstandings.

A misunderstanding of Conservatism and economic principles.

And FYI, a "living breathing document" by definiton cannot be a Constitution.

I understand "conservatism," as it is currently practiced in the U.S., just fine.