Paul Ryan mocks senior citizen who wants to keep his medicare.

[miami_thomas]

Okay, the following words eliminate all credibility when you post them.

Marxist
Communist
Socialist

If you say these words, you are a bad joke as a poster, and no one but the wingiest wingnut will take you seriously.

Exactly you just proved my point by denying their existence. Your avatar is a Marxist, Socialist, Communist symbol yet you are saying they do not exist. Funny I could not have hoped for a better response from you.

Um, actually, my avatar is from a Pink Floyd Album...

At best the argument is not about "communism". No one is going to confiscate all the corporations and execute all the CEO's...

At best, this argument is between supply siders and Keynesians... and the Supply Siders have failed to produce.

The names Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are not what are bad. They are after all just titles and mean nothing without their substance. And that is just it because what Democrats are selling is the same philosophies of Marx and Engels they just don’t want it called the same thing. At the end, all of the ideals have the same ultimate goal. Equality to all and the elimination of classes and that is where all fail. There is no such thing as equality and each destroys themselves in their attempt to gain something unattainable. To pretend there can be a perfect run government when there is no such thing as perfection is a disaster. That is because the only way to ensure equality is to have one power running everything to ensure that equality. That something has to be the government but if the government is running things then it is not equal. Therefore, equality is never reached. At least in a free market capitalist economy everyone has a chance do to their own ability to make it big. In all those other equality ideals government decides who the haves and who have nots are and it will always be themselves that are the haves.

You can paint it and call it whatever you want but in the end they all want the same thing which is unattainable. There will always be greed, there will always be the haves, and there will always be the have nots. At the end the only thing we are arguing is by what means they are decided. Democrats like the others wish for the government to decide because they believe they will create equality. Again a lie but even if they could get equality it would have to be forced equality and that is the problem is you can only force people if you take away freedom and human rights. There is no other way and that is where all the others have failed in the past and that is where the Democrats ideology will fail in the future.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly you just proved my point by denying their existence. Your avatar is a Marxist, Socialist, Communist symbol yet you are saying they do not exist. Funny I could not have hoped for a better response from you.

Um, actually, my avatar is from a Pink Floyd Album...

At best the argument is not about "communism". No one is going to confiscate all the corporations and execute all the CEO's...

At best, this argument is between supply siders and Keynesians... and the Supply Siders have failed to produce.

The names Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are not what are bad. They are after all just titles and mean nothing without their substance. And that is just it because what Democrats are selling is the same philosophies of Marx and Engels they just don’t want it called the same thing. At the end, all of the ideals have the same ultimate goal. Equality to all and the elimination of classes and that is where all fail. There is no such thing as equality and each destroys themselves in their attempt to gain something unattainable. To pretend there can be a perfect run government when there is no such thing as perfection is a disaster. That is because the only way to ensure equality is to have one power running everything to ensure that equality. That something has to be the government but if the government is running things then it is not equal. Therefore, equality is never reached. At least in a free market capitalist economy everyone has a chance do to their own ability to make it big. In all those other government decides who the haves and who have nots are and it will always be themselves that are the haves.

You can paint it and call it whatever you want but in the end they all want the same thing which is unattainable. There will always be greed, there will always be the haves, and there will always be the have nots. At the end the only thing we are arguing is by what means they are decided. Democrats like the others wish for the government to decide because they believe they will create equality. Again a lie but even if they could get equality it would have to be forced equality and that is the problem is you can only force people if you take away freedom and human rights. There is no other way and that is where all the others have failed in the past and that is where the Democrats ideology will fail in the future.

Since no one is proposing anything like this, your argument is against a straw man.

No one is for "forced equality", but there's nothing wrong with levelling the playing field.

If you are going through life thinking the government is the one keeping you from "hitting it big" like that is a goal that is worthy, then I would say your priorities are kind of messed up.

No one ever said on their deathbed "I wish I spent more time at the office making more money!"

 

[miami_thomas]

Um, actually, my avatar is from a Pink Floyd Album...

At best the argument is not about "communism". No one is going to confiscate all the corporations and execute all the CEO's...

At best, this argument is between supply siders and Keynesians... and the Supply Siders have failed to produce.

The names Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are not what are bad. They are after all just titles and mean nothing without their substance. And that is just it because what Democrats are selling is the same philosophies of Marx and Engels they just don’t want it called the same thing. At the end, all of the ideals have the same ultimate goal. Equality to all and the elimination of classes and that is where all fail. There is no such thing as equality and each destroys themselves in their attempt to gain something unattainable. To pretend there can be a perfect run government when there is no such thing as perfection is a disaster. That is because the only way to ensure equality is to have one power running everything to ensure that equality. That something has to be the government but if the government is running things then it is not equal. Therefore, equality is never reached. At least in a free market capitalist economy everyone has a chance do to their own ability to make it big. In all those other government decides who the haves and who have nots are and it will always be themselves that are the haves.

You can paint it and call it whatever you want but in the end they all want the same thing which is unattainable. There will always be greed, there will always be the haves, and there will always be the have nots. At the end the only thing we are arguing is by what means they are decided. Democrats like the others wish for the government to decide because they believe they will create equality. Again a lie but even if they could get equality it would have to be forced equality and that is the problem is you can only force people if you take away freedom and human rights. There is no other way and that is where all the others have failed in the past and that is where the Democrats ideology will fail in the future.

Since no one is proposing anything like this, your argument is against a straw man.

No one is for "forced equality", but there's nothing wrong with levelling the playing field.

If you are going through life thinking the government is the one keeping you from "hitting it big" like that is a goal that is worthy, then I would say your priorities are kind of messed up.

No one ever said on their deathbed "I wish I spent more time at the office making more money!"

I have done just fine for myself. Everyone had the same options I had and that is a “[level] playing field” it has always existed in this country. What you want is forced equality. What you want is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. This is not “leveling the playing field”. This is an attempt for equality.