A clear, historical example of the left wing's ideals:

[bucs90]

Here you go, this is what the left is rooted in. This man, along with other liberals of the past and present that they worship, are simply downright EVIL human beings:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgpaKkrZex4]George Bernard Shaw and "the Humane Gas" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

so you want us dead just like you want the American government dead?

 

[occupied]

Killing off people who are not productive is the opposite of liberalism. How many times has some blowhard on this board and elsewhere railed against the "useless scum" who are a drag on our country? How many times has said blowhard been a liberal?

 

[bucs90]

Killing off people who are not productive is the opposite of liberalism. How many times has some blowhard on this board and elsewhere railed against the "useless scum" who are a drag on our country? How many times has said blowhard been a liberal?

Then why has the left wing ideology produced so many regimes who have done just that:

North Korea
Red China
USSR
Burma
Vietnam
Cuba
Natl Socialist Party

I can go on.....

 

[bucs90]

See, the cycle of liberalism goes through a phase, like we are now, where they want to redistribute all the resources to everyone and be all equal. Then....a dreadful reality sets in. That it is not possible. Then....they conclude there are just too many people and too few resources (See: Green movement). So, since producing more resources is not the answer (capitalism and industry bad, remember?), then fewer people becomes the ultimate result. Dont worry. The modern left wing is drifting that way.

 

[Truthmatters]

so how is it good for our union to have all the assets at the top?

 

[occupied]

Killing off people who are not productive is the opposite of liberalism. How many times has some blowhard on this board and elsewhere railed against the "useless scum" who are a drag on our country? How many times has said blowhard been a liberal?

Then why has the left wing ideology produced so many regimes who have done just that:

North Korea
Red China
USSR
Burma
Vietnam
Cuba
Natl Socialist Party

I can go on.....

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

 

[bucs90]

so how is it good for our union to have all the assets at the top?

It's not. And we dont have that. The United States of America has a "lower" or "poor" class that lives a lifestyle that would be envied by 90% of the rest of the world. Our poor are obese for God's sake, meaning they take in TOO MANY CALORIES (too much food). They have TV's, cars, cell phones, microwaves, washing machines, air conditioning, free education, free ER service.

In no way are all our assets at the top. If anyone has a gripe, it'd be the rest of the world bitching about why America's "poor" live in such relative wealth.

BTW, I'm fine with all of the above. I love American exceptionalism. Our poor are richer than 90% of the people in Africa, Asia, South America.

 

[bucs90]

Killing off people who are not productive is the opposite of liberalism. How many times has some blowhard on this board and elsewhere railed against the "useless scum" who are a drag on our country? How many times has said blowhard been a liberal?

Then why has the left wing ideology produced so many regimes who have done just that:

North Korea
Red China
USSR
Burma
Vietnam
Cuba
Natl Socialist Party

I can go on.....

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

Yes, that is correct. One always comes before the other. It's like cancer. It grows until it is removed or it kills the host.

 

[occupied]

so how is it good for our union to have all the assets at the top?

It's not. And we dont have that. The United States of America has a "lower" or "poor" class that lives a lifestyle that would be envied by 90% of the rest of the world. Our poor are obese for God's sake, meaning they take in TOO MANY CALORIES (too much food). They have TV's, cars, cell phones, microwaves, washing machines, air conditioning, free education, free ER service.

In no way are all our assets at the top. If anyone has a gripe, it'd be the rest of the world bitching about why America's "poor" live in such relative wealth.

BTW, I'm fine with all of the above. I love American exceptionalism. Our poor are richer than 90% of the people in Africa, Asia, South America.

Our poor have it so nice is a colossal callous cop-out to just give up on them and accept the embarrassment of widespread poverty in the richest country on earth. I don't care where you live, if your kids are hungry it sucks balls.

 

[uscitizen]

hUman beings are the problem.
there are always some that will mess up any style of government thus all will fail.

 

[daveman]

Killing off people who are not productive is the opposite of liberalism. How many times has some blowhard on this board and elsewhere railed against the "useless scum" who are a drag on our country? How many times has said blowhard been a liberal?

Then why has the left wing ideology produced so many regimes who have done just that:

North Korea
Red China
USSR
Burma
Vietnam
Cuba
Natl Socialist Party

I can go on.....

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

There is a difference between authoritarian communism and classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism? Not as distinct.

 

[peach174]

so how is it good for our union to have all the assets at the top?

It's not. And we dont have that. The United States of America has a "lower" or "poor" class that lives a lifestyle that would be envied by 90% of the rest of the world. Our poor are obese for God's sake, meaning they take in TOO MANY CALORIES (too much food). They have TV's, cars, cell phones, microwaves, washing machines, air conditioning, free education, free ER service.

In no way are all our assets at the top. If anyone has a gripe, it'd be the rest of the world bitching about why America's "poor" live in such relative wealth.

BTW, I'm fine with all of the above. I love American exceptionalism. Our poor are richer than 90% of the people in Africa, Asia, South America.

Our poor have it so nice is a colossal callous cop-out to just give up on them and accept the embarrassment of widespread poverty in the richest country on earth. I don't care where you live, if your kids are hungry it sucks balls.

No one is giving up on our poor.
Welfare checks and other government goodies is what is keeping them in poverty.
They are still going hungry even with government hand outs, welfare is not working.
The best way is to help them get out of poverty,give them an education,like a community college or technical schooling or on the job training.
Have them do community service while they get welfare checks and only for a certain time, like 2 years.

 

[bucs90]

so how is it good for our union to have all the assets at the top?

It's not. And we dont have that. The United States of America has a "lower" or "poor" class that lives a lifestyle that would be envied by 90% of the rest of the world. Our poor are obese for God's sake, meaning they take in TOO MANY CALORIES (too much food). They have TV's, cars, cell phones, microwaves, washing machines, air conditioning, free education, free ER service.

In no way are all our assets at the top. If anyone has a gripe, it'd be the rest of the world bitching about why America's "poor" live in such relative wealth.

BTW, I'm fine with all of the above. I love American exceptionalism. Our poor are richer than 90% of the people in Africa, Asia, South America.

Our poor have it so nice is a colossal callous cop-out to just give up on them and accept the embarrassment of widespread poverty in the richest country on earth. I don't care where you live, if your kids are hungry it sucks balls.

Its not a 'cop out'. It's a fact. Studies have shown this clearly.

One of the biggest threats to poor kids these days is OBESITY!!! They get too many calories, and do too little work!! In fact, that plague hits all our poor very hard. That says something about how "bad" they have it.

 

[occupied]

Then why has the left wing ideology produced so many regimes who have done just that:

North Korea
Red China
USSR
Burma
Vietnam
Cuba
Natl Socialist Party

I can go on.....

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

There is a difference between authoritarian communism and classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism? Not as distinct.

Does that mean I can lump everything on the right into the nazi party? I mean if important distinctions like killing and enslaving millions under an ultra nationalist banner are to be ignored then it should be acceptable.

 

[Wiseacre]

hUman beings are the problem.
there are always some that will mess up any style of government thus all will fail.

And there are always some who will take as much advantage as possible to further their own ends, and too often get away with illegal activities. And unfortunately the rest of us get screwed and don't do enough to correct the problem. That's called poor gov't and poor citizenship.

 

[daveman]

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

There is a difference between authoritarian communism and classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism? Not as distinct.

Does that mean I can lump everything on the right into the nazi party? I mean if important distinctions like killing and enslaving millions under an ultra nationalist banner are to be ignored then it should be acceptable.

You're forgetting the distinction between classical liberalism as practiced by the Founding Fathers and modern liberalism, which has little to do with individual liberty and everything to do with collectivism.

 

[bucs90]

It might be that there is a difference between authoritarian communism and liberalism.

There is a difference between authoritarian communism and classical liberalism.

Modern liberalism? Not as distinct.

Does that mean I can lump everything on the right into the nazi party? I mean if important distinctions like killing and enslaving millions under an ultra nationalist banner are to be ignored then it should be acceptable.

No. The right wing "less govt" theme, if taken to extremes, would resemble places like Mexico or Afghanistan, where the local govt, cops, military have less power than drug cartels, gangs, etc, who wreak havoc on the people. But the govt is so weak, it turns into a true state of gang rule, and natural disasters have devastating effects because the govt infrastructure and response are so weak.

But, liberals aren't smart enough to take it to that logical conclusion in an example of "less govt" gone too far.