It's Official!! Liberal Democrats are Socialists!!

[musicman]

What is happening is not for fun. Its for winning. Cheating is the only way you crooks can win. Boy it didn't take long before you resorted to dirty tricks. I came. I saw. I conquered. I take no satisfaction in doing so however because there was never any contest. Stupid rightwing morons.

You might as well get used to it, yeula. We always win because we always cheat. We will always win forever, and your obviously superior intellect will avail you naught. Al Gore knows it, John Kerry knows it, and if you know what's good for you, you'll get it through your rebellious head. We are the future - accept us. Embrace the loving, merciful theocracy or die like a dog. That is all.

 

[yeula]

If you think people should earn everything they get why do you support Bush who never earned anything in his life? Why should he get to sit in the white house when he didn't even win an election.

You people are good at talking out your asses. If there were no social programs you would probably be the people who are hit the hardest.

Without bin laden's family to bail him out of all his business failures Bush would be digging ditches.

 

[musicman]

If you think people should earn everything they get why do you support Bush who never earned anything in his life? Why should he get to sit in the white house when he didn't even win an election.

You people are good at talking out your asses. If there were no social programs you would probably be the people who are hit the hardest.

Without bin laden's family to bail him out of all his business failures Bush would be digging ditches.

Why are you fighting us? Your defeat is inevitable; it is pre-ordained. Submit now. There is no pain, there is no death. Your personality will merely be absorbed.

 

[no1tovote4]

If you think people should earn everything they get why do you support Bush who never earned anything in his life? Why should he get to sit in the white house when he didn't even win an election.

You people are good at talking out your asses. If there were no social programs you would probably be the people who are hit the hardest.

Without bin laden's family to bail him out of all his business failures Bush would be digging ditches.

An attack on the Constitutional system of the Electoral College, or the fact that Gore was not allowed to only count in his special Democrat Counties?

Bush was elected. Twice. Sorry to say you are simply wrong, and there is only one ass talking here today.

I would love to see you point out even one person that is on a "social program" on this particular board.

 

[IControlThePast]

and well there should be, it should be difficult and short, anything else creates dependency.

It should be difficult and short, but people are still against it, and believe that the only way people will be off these programs is when the time limit expires. Back when we even had handouts for welfare, and would give recipients raw cash, more than 2/3 were off within three years. Most of those who weren't off in that time span were children.

Rubbish, NOT towards your Mom, she should be very proud of herself and good for her for raising you to admire her. Rubbish to the fact that there are many that haven't a 'middle class' or better background that do succeed with both college and enterprise. How they find it? Damn if we could answer that we'd be a much better country

Ok, well then my article adresses that. I didn't think you were saying what happened to my mom wasn't true, just that you were asking for clarification.

Sure it is, you put your being on the line, really.

Ah rubbish, I never put my being on the line for any scholarship :tng:. Our school system goes over the top on self esteem.

My kids are all going to college, without my help. Loans, scholarship, grants, and work. It can be done. Though it is hard! Not sure what you mean by that, I finished 2 degrees after high school. Went back for a third and now finishing up my masters.

It is hard, and unmeritocratically hard. You can wind up having to drop out with thousands in student loans and no way to pay, or still not be able to find work with all of that debt to pay off. You have to work hard, and there is a huge risk if you are trying to go from poor to rich.

What I meant by that was nothing against your personality or anything, but referring to you telling me most people don't go to college in the thread on college liberalism .

 

[Shattered]

You people are good at talking out your asses. If there were no social programs you would probably be the people who are hit the hardest.

We're the ones being hit the hardest *now*, since we're *funding* the social problems, yet reaping NONE of the benefits.

 

[IControlThePast]

If you think people should earn everything they get why do you support Bush who never earned anything in his life? Why should he get to sit in the white house when he didn't even win an election.

You people are good at talking out your asses. If there were no social programs you would probably be the people who are hit the hardest.

Without bin laden's family to bail him out of all his business failures Bush would be digging ditches.

I'm starting to think it is Darin. Anybody with this lack of tact is trying to get a laugh, get a worse reputation than mrsx, or just not thinking.

These posts are only inflammatory and trollish. This is someone who truly deserves to return to DU .

I would love to see you point out even one person that is on a "social program" on this particular board.

You mean like Social Security

 

[Annie]

I'm starting to think it is Darin. Anybody with this lack of tact is trying to get a laugh, get a worse reputation than mrsx, or just not thinking.

These posts are only inflammatory and trollish. This is someone who truly deserves to return to DU .




You mean like Social Security

IF it IS Darin, I'm going to kill him for letting me waste my time on this fool. I think you have a point.

 

[yeula]

What in the world would represent a troll in this forum? Isn't this forum open to anyone? Is this a rightwing forum or something? Do you think other people are not allowed to have opinions that are different from yours? Who the hell do you think you are? You can't answer my questions so you attack me. What else is new.

If you think people should be held responsible then why don't you be responsible to debate fairly?

 

[IControlThePast]

What in the world would represent a troll in this forum? Isn't this forum open to anyone? Is this a rightwing forum or something? Do you think other people are not allowed to have opinions that are different from yours? Who the hell do you think you are? You can't answer my questions so you attack me. What else is new.

If you think people should be held responsible then why don't you be responsible to debate fairly?

A troll would represent someone looking for an argument and not a debate. You know this is a right wing forum. I'm one of the most left leaning members on here. Having different opinions is ok, but you have completely gone about expressing you opinions the wrong way. If you're talking to a group of people who consistently vote for the Republican party, who are possibly part of the Republican party, and you call the Republican party sludge, are you seriously expecting them to immediately agree and follow you, or call you an asshole instead? Then going on and declaring the 2000 election invalid, while it legally was, does nothing to help their opinion of you. Not only is that not relevant to the topic whatsoever, but you then you call them crooks, stupid, morons, and people who can only win by cheating. That is the definition of trolling. You can't be expecting anything other to incite a negative reaction. Is that your idea of debating fairly, or is that Darin under there making me laugh?

 

[yeula]

Excuse me icontrolthefuture but if I am one lone liberal here you'd think all of you together could be able to refute at least some of the things I say.

Its not my fault that Bush stole the election. Why don't you just say yeah thats right he did get into office because the Supreme court gave it to him and be done with it.

You could at least show some grace and dignity about it. What right do you have to get pissed when Al Gore won the election and had it stolen from him? He is the one who has a right to be angry. How can you measure having the White House STOLEN from you?

What right do you have to be pissed when Bush never got elected and then took us into a war that the majority of people didn't want?

Never mind.

I just realized that you people are doing the best that you can. I am only one person but you are outnumbered and I shouldn't be so hard on you.

If this is a republican forum then who do you debate? Don't you think it might be a good idea to sharpen your thinking and your skills by debating people's whose opinions are different from yours? Or do you have too big a need to feel good about yourselves?

I'm sorry you are disadvantaged.

Let me hazzard one more question. did it ever occur to anyone here that possibly you are wrong? Does anyone think it might be wrong to steal an election?

Are you never embarrassed by the fact that Bush has no command of the English language but he goes around boasting that he's commander in chief?

Did you know that Condi Rice, colon powell, karl rove, dick cheney and others were gathered at a place where bush was due to address the nation and C-Span was covering it before they went on the air and bush announced that he was the one to come up with the idea of a Palestinian homeland? He was grinning like an idiot and acting like a school child bragging about himself.

The people in his entourage all looked busily engaged in deep conversation so they wouldn't have to look at him. What do you make of that?

Why do some republicans here mock ted kennedy when he never joined AA?

Don't you ever get embarrassed by Bush's bushisms?

 

[musicman]

A troll would represent someone looking for an argument and not a debate. You know this is a right wing forum. I'm one of the most left leaning members on here. Having different opinions is ok, but you have completely gone about expressing you opinions the wrong way. If you're talking to a group of people who consistently vote for the Republican party, who are possibly part of the Republican party, and you call the Republican party sludge, are you seriously expecting them to immediately agree and follow you, or call you an asshole instead? Then going on and declaring the 2000 election invalid, while it legally was, does nothing to help their opinion of you. Not only is that not relevant to the topic whatsoever, but you then you call them crooks, stupid, morons, and people who can only win by cheating. That is the definition of trolling. You can't be expecting anything other to incite a negative reaction. Is that your idea of debating fairly, or is that Darin under there making me laugh?

My God, it's come to this: IControlThePast represents the voice of reason in this debate*! Hell with it; I'm gonna go chase a few parked cars now.




* Well, except for that "...declaring the 2000 election invalid, {which} it legally was..." thing. Oh, well - when a donkey flies, I don't blame him for not staying up long.

 

[Comrade]

Now there are more than five times the numbers of nations there were in the 70s, and many of the new ones created hold valuable oil supplies.

Sure, the point is, none of the new countries compete in the economic leauge of the Liberal Democracies. The point is, Sweden has been outpaced by countries it formerly beat out, and that's not because of adding any new countries (like East Timor? LOL!).

Sweden doesn't have much to work with in terms of exports. They don't have many natural resources outside a bit of iron. The can't grow wine like France and have relatively little culture to export, but they remain a leading exporter.

Being a lead exporter does not a successfull economy make. One can be a net exporter and still screw up their economy with socialist policy.

Sweden has about the 10th most economically free country in the world.

I highly doubt that statistic. Sweden is one of the most highly taxed nations on earth, which is the opposite of being 'economically free'.

Let me pin you down on your facts so far:

There's not too much big government there compared to other places.

That's really silly to claim that. In fact, Sweden's government budget revenue per $ of GDP is the 13th highest in the world, behind several tiny and otherwise internationally propped up budgets in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_bud_rev_gdp

1. Tuvalu $184.42 per $100
2. Gaza Strip $126.53 per $100
3. Montserrat $108.27 per $100
4. Saint Pierre and Miquelon $94.59 per $100
5. Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) $88.26 per $100
6. French Polynesia $76.92 per $100
7. Wallis and Futuna $66.66 per $100
8. Saint Helena $62.22 per $100
9. Gibraltar $61.4 per $100
10. Monaco $59.54 per $100
11. Greenland $58.72 per $100
12. West Bank $54.70 per $100
13. Sweden $51.58 per $100 !!!
...
...
...
United States $18.62 per $100 [81st of 173]

Right now the Industrial growth rate of the US is only 0.3%.

That's why I picked a growth rate over time for 30+ years. Because any particular quarter of growth is irrelevent in a normal, fluctuating economy. Sweden's growth of 2.2% over that period is downright sluggish, and thats why they now fall behind even France when ranking GDP numbers. Please keep your discussion focused on the time frame which is relevent, that period since Sweden enacted massive socialism.

You are looking at the recession, which was not the fault of Socialism, when you look at the long term GNP, and that skews the result. However, Sweden managed to deal with the recession rather quickly and without incurring too much debt. Right now forcasts are good, despite the mentioned social problem.

I don't think Sweden stands a chance of competing with the overtaking world economies, not while it continues its socialist policy, and ignores the Muslim welfare issues growing at a rapid rate.

As for your opinion on their national debt, you should wonder why they rank #5 among having the most externally held debt per person. I bet your one of those people who really harp on the US debt, and yet you just gave Sweden the ultimate pass... probably because they're... maybe... socialist?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_deb_ext_cap

1. Qatar $18848.24 per person
2. Iceland $9259.32 per person
3. Australia $8960.07 per person
4. New Zealand $8351.66 per person
5. Sweden $7490.35 per person
6. United Arab Emirates $7445.21 per person
7. Israel $6997.42 per person
8. Cook Islands $6711.72 per person
9. Hong Kong $6694.46 per person

FYI:

26. United States $2968.90 per person

You should really do some research before claiming such feelings resemble actual statistics, or else I'll continue to bust your balls on your facts.

 

[Comrade]

What in the world would represent a troll in this forum? Isn't this forum open to anyone? Is this a rightwing forum or something? Do you think other people are not allowed to have opinions that are different from yours? Who the hell do you think you are? You can't answer my questions so you attack me. What else is new.

If you think people should be held responsible then why don't you be responsible to debate fairly?

Whenever someone poses an argument that is beyond any focused or linked factual basis for debate, one can only assume that person is here to troll. Because no one can be that stupid.

And thus we must label them as intentionally trolling... an immature mind whose purpose is not to listen and reply to more substantial facts, but to simply provoke other members of the board out of their own, desperate plea for attention.

That is a troll.

 

[Avatar4321]

Excuse me icontrolthefuture but if I am one lone liberal here you'd think all of you together could be able to refute at least some of the things I say.

Two points:

1) People have been refuting the bosh you've been spouting.
2) Quite honestly they really don't have to refute anything you don't establish or support anyway.

Its not my fault that Bush stole the election. Why don't you just say yeah thats right he did get into office because the Supreme court gave it to him and be done with it.

Case in point. You are going to try to claim President Bush stole an election? He won both elections fair and square. He had the most votes. He won. He won the first recount, he won the second recount, he won the third recount. In fact, at no time during the entire election did he lose any counts of the vote. And the American people have further supported the President by reelecting Him by the greatest amount of votes in American history.

You could at least show some grace and dignity about it. What right do you have to get pissed when Al Gore won the election and had it stolen from him? He is the one who has a right to be angry. How can you measure having the White House STOLEN from you?

Al Gore never won. At no point did he ever have enough electorial votes to be President. At no point did he win a recount. Even after the media did their own count, he lost. I don't know what dream world you are living in but you should be very grateful that he didn't win considering he has snapped and gone off the deep end.

What right do you have to be pissed when Bush never got elected and then took us into a war that the majority of people didn't want?

No one wants war. But you have to remember. We were attacked! I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. We did not start this war on terror. We are trying to stop people who want to see us dead or subjugated and you have to understand that your actions to prevent us from stopping these monsters helps them achieve their goal. Thankfully you are not in the majority. Thankfully a majority of us understand the purpose of stopping evil in the world. There are still enough people who are will protect and advance the cause of freedom despite your ingratitude for the gift our forefathers died to give us. Maybe oneday you will wake up and take responsibility for your actions. Until then I sure am glad others will take responsibility for defending freedom.

Never mind.

I just realized that you people are doing the best that you can. I am only one person but you are outnumbered and I shouldn't be so hard on you.

What on earth are you babbling about?

If this is a republican forum then who do you debate? Don't you think it might be a good idea to sharpen your thinking and your skills by debating people's whose opinions are different from yours? Or do you have too big a need to feel good about yourselves?

I'm sorry you are disadvantaged.

Sadly the left has yet to create real caliber people too debate. they just all come on like you with your holier than thou attitude rather than discuss issues. Maybe when you decide to let go of your irrational hatred of President Bush, get over the fact that he was fairly elected twice and actually work on your parties platform to debate the issues, you might be a force to be reckoned. However, experience goes to show that the more one lets go of their hate and looks at a topic with their brains, they tend to leave the liberal side of the aisle. How many more deaths does liberalism have to be responsible for before you guys start thinking its a bad idea?

Let me hazzard one more question. did it ever occur to anyone here that possibly you are wrong? Does anyone think it might be wrong to steal an election?

Hello?! Is anyone home?! No one is claiming that is right to steal an election. The fact is no one stole any election. Al Gore tried pretty hard to steal an election. he failed.

Are you never embarrassed by the fact that Bush has no command of the English language but he goes around boasting that he's commander in chief?

Are you ever embarassed at your inability to command the English language while you sanctimoniously critisize others for their "so-called" lack of skills? Are you ever embarassed by your arrogance? Are you ever embarassed by your irrational hatred?

Did you know that Condi Rice, colon powell, karl rove, dick cheney and others were gathered at a place where bush was due to address the nation and C-Span was covering it before they went on the air and bush announced that he was the one to come up with the idea of a Palestinian homeland? He was grinning like an idiot and acting like a school child bragging about himself.

The people in his entourage all looked busily engaged in deep conversation so they wouldn't have to look at him. What do you make of that?

I make of it that you are full of BS. The fact is no one has been advocating a Palestinian state till President Bush started to. Quite frankly I dont know why he has to. The Palestinians have a home state. its called Jordan. Nevertheless, it is President Bush who has been at the forefront of advocating for a separate Palestinian state.

Why do some republicans here mock ted kennedy when he never joined AA?

Probably because his alcoholism is responsible for the death of a woman. Maybe because he refuses to acknowledge his problem with booze and get help? Maybe because he is a hypocrite like yourself? Why do you mock President Bush for admitting he had a problem and taking responsibility for it while you let Ted Kennedy get away with murder with his Alcohol problem?

Don't you ever get embarrassed by Bush's bushisms?

No, because if you actually look into them, most of them are the same phrases the left tried to accuse Dan Quayle of saying back while he was Vice President. They were made up then and they are made up now.

Moreover, I think this is a good time to address some sort of baseless assumption of yours. You seem to think that in order to be a good and effective leader, you have to speak perfectly. The problem with that is this is a bunch of bosh. Some of the best leaders I know of weren't the best speakers. It isn't the eloquence of what is said that is important. its the substance. Like alot of libs you seeem you be focused on the shallow side of things how they appear rather than the substance of what a leader stands for.

And besides having listened to Howard Dean this past weekend and heard other Democrat leaders, i am not sure you are really in that great a position to critisize President Bush for his "poor" language skills. I mean John Kerry promised in one of the debates to give Iran the nuclear fuel they need to build nuclear reactors and you seem to think President Bush doesn't know what he is saying or doing? Seriously, come on here.

 

[KarlMarx]

Excuse me icontrolthefuture but if I am one lone liberal here you'd think all of you together could be able to refute at least some of the things I say.

We did, we did!!!! You just want to perseverate.

Its not my fault that Bush stole the election. Why don't you just say yeah thats right he did get into office because the Supreme court gave it to him and be done with it.

and perseverate and perseverate

You could at least show some grace and dignity about it. What right do you have to get pissed when Al Gore won the election and had it stolen from him? He is the one who has a right to be angry. How can you measure having the White House STOLEN from you?

and perseverate and perseverate

What right do you have to be pissed when Bush never got elected and then took us into a war that the majority of people didn't want?

most people supported the war ..... the majority of liberals were against the war.

I just realized that you people are doing the best that you can. I am only one person but you are outnumbered and I shouldn't be so hard on you.

That's very nice of you, I particularly love that condescending tone of yours.

If this is a republican forum then who do you debate? Don't you think it might be a good idea to sharpen your thinking and your skills by debating people's whose opinions are different from yours? Or do you have too big a need to feel good about yourselves?

I'm sorry you are disadvantaged.

I wonder, I posted on DU and got banned after three posts, you're up to what, 50 posts now? If we're disadvantaged, then why do you waste your time with us? Is it out of some altruistic obsession to enlighten the world?

Let me hazzard one more question. did it ever occur to anyone here that possibly you are wrong? Does anyone think it might be wrong to steal an election?

Yes, it has occured to us ... and we debate it.....

oh, there you go again about the stolen election, stolen election,stolen election, stolen election, stolen election......

Are you never embarrassed by the fact that Bush has no command of the English language but he goes around boasting that he's commander in chief?

Did you know that Condi Rice, colon powell, karl rove, dick cheney and others were gathered at a place where bush was due to address the nation and C-Span was covering it before they went on the air and bush announced that he was the one to come up with the idea of a Palestinian homeland? He was grinning like an idiot and acting like a school child bragging about himself.

The people in his entourage all looked busily engaged in deep conversation so they wouldn't have to look at him. What do you make of that?

And you never met a conspiracy theory that you didn't like.....

Why do some republicans here mock ted kennedy when he never joined AA?

No, we mock Ted Kennedy because he drove a car off a bridge and killed a woman back in 1969, we mock Ted Kennedy because he drinks like a fish, we mock Ted Kennedy because he likes to make "waitress sandwiches" in public restaurants, we mock Ted Kennedy, because frankly, his older brother Jack isn't around to do it.... because truth be told, if Jack were alive today, he'd probably be a Republican and be slapping the living daylights out of his younger socialist brother.... Ted Kennedy has been bought by the Labor Unions, Ted Kennedy never met a dictator he didn't like.... enough reasons for you?

Don't you ever get embarrassed by Bush's bushisms?

Considering some of the doozies that you've posted.... you've got him beat by a mile...

But I'd like to ask, have you ever been embarrassed by Clinton and Carter's failed foreign policies? Or their domestic policies? Or their fiscal policies? Or Clinton's sexual escapades involving young women and cigars that he lied about under oath? Or the fact that Clinton did NOTHING about several attacks by Al Queda on the United States....

 

[IControlThePast]

Sure, the point is, none of the new countries compete in the economic leauge of the Liberal Democracies. The point is, Sweden has been outpaced by countries it formerly beat out, and that's not because of adding any new countries (like East Timor? LOL!).

Sweden has many disadvantages to the countries ahead of it. It hardly has any people either, when it is going against the US, China, Russia, India, etc. If you look at GDP per capita though, Sweden is 7th in the world and ahead of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

I highly doubt that statistic. Sweden is one of the most highly taxed nations on earth, which is the opposite of being 'economically free'.

Here's a source that says Sweden is 14th. It is a study of economic freedom done by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom#Current_ratings

That's why I picked a growth rate over time for 30+ years. Because any particular quarter of growth is irrelevent in a normal, fluctuating economy. Sweden's growth of 2.2% over that period is downright sluggish, and thats why they now fall behind even France when ranking GDP numbers. Please keep your discussion focused on the time frame which is relevent, that period since Sweden enacted massive socialism.

It looks sluggish because Sweden had a large recession in that span. The recession was because the government artificially inflated unemployment causing large inflation. That is why the growth looks so low.

I don't think Sweden stands a chance of competing with the overtaking world economies, not while it continues its socialist policy, and ignores the Muslim welfare issues growing at a rapid rate.

Well it's part of the EU now, which is the largest Economy in the world, so we'll see.

As for your opinion on their national debt, you should wonder why they rank #5 among having the most externally held debt per person. I bet your one of those people who really harp on the US debt, and yet you just gave Sweden the ultimate pass... probably because they're... maybe... socialist?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_deb_ext_cap

The personal debt is leftover from the inflation period. Sweden is handling its debt well.

 

[Comrade]

IControlThePast,

It's surprising how Sweden ranks in GNP per Capita below France in the CIA database and seems to have shot up somewhat in Wiki, and I don't think this is because of a year difference in data, so it makes me wonder how hard and fast this number was developed in both cases.

But fair enough. Good sourcing.

 

[IControlThePast]

IControlThePast,

It's surprising how Sweden ranks in GNP per Capita below France in the CIA database and seems to have shot up somewhat in Wiki, and I don't think this is because of a year difference in data, so it makes me wonder how hard and fast this number was developed in both cases.

But fair enough. Good sourcing.

Maybe it's because you're looking at the GNP or the PPP GDP instead of the nominal GDP .

 

[Comrade]

Maybe it's because you're looking at the GNP or the PPP GDP instead of the nominal GDP .

What I linked was not a GNP measurement nor a PPP adjusted GDP.

I'd like to ask you to do the research as to why the two ranking differ by so much, because right now I'm too lazy and tired to do it, and you seem like a bright person. In fact, I'm glad to have a left leaning, intelligent person on the board to debate against.