Random Truths

[edthecynic]

Progressivism is all about envy, revenge, getting even, frivolous punishment, control, racism, selective outrage, deflection, and elitism.

CON$ervatism is all about projection.

 

[Rustic]

Progressivism is all about envy, revenge, getting even, frivolous punishment, control, racism, selective outrage, deflection, and elitism.

CON$ervatism is all about projection.

I am more of a libertarian than a conservative... Sorry

 

[PoliticalChic]

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

LIAR!

You got 'em from a Right-wing whacko site rense.com

I note that you were unable to deny the truth of the post, and the premise: the aims of the communists, and the Democrat Party, are the very same.​

Truth from a liar is absurd!!!
I nailed you lying, and you can't deny it!

I never lie.

I provided the source, and Rense noted this:
"You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. "rense.com


Nothing was hidden.

You're sulking because I showed what a dunce you are in posting that George Bernard Shaw was just kidding when he endorsed the slaughter of any he didn't agree with.

He wasn't.
And you remain a dunce.

You ALWAYS lie.
you claimed you "got 'em from a website of declared communist goals..."
You didn't!
You got them from a Right-wing Fascist site who got them from a Right-wing Fascist propagandist. They are not from any Communist source and have nothing to do with Communism.

And Shaw was not joking, he was SATIRIZING, but you are too STUPID to know the difference.

1. So....you are not prepared to dispute that the Communists and the Democrat Party share the same goals.

Great.

2. Shaw meant every word of it....that's what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats believe....

Here, from their predecessor:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


And here, from Shaw:

1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.
2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

This is why totalitarians slaughtered over 100 million human beings in the last century.

Now the big question: why are you so dumb?

 

[edthecynic]

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

No, WAGE earners, bot the truly wealthy, pay most of the taxes and that bottom 47% pay payroll taxes which is hardly a free ride.

 

[edthecynic]

Progressivism is all about envy, revenge, getting even, frivolous punishment, control, racism, selective outrage, deflection, and elitism.

CON$ervatism is all about projection.

I am more of a libertarian than a conservative... Sorry

You were still projecting!

 

[edthecynic]

LIAR!

You got 'em from a Right-wing whacko site rense.com

I note that you were unable to deny the truth of the post, and the premise: the aims of the communists, and the Democrat Party, are the very same.​

Truth from a liar is absurd!!!
I nailed you lying, and you can't deny it!

I never lie.

I provided the source, and Rense noted this:
"You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. "rense.com


Nothing was hidden.

You're sulking because I showed what a dunce you are in posting that George Bernard Shaw was just kidding when he endorsed the slaughter of any he didn't agree with.

He wasn't.
And you remain a dunce.

You ALWAYS lie.
you claimed you "got 'em from a website of declared communist goals..."
You didn't!
You got them from a Right-wing Fascist site who got them from a Right-wing Fascist propagandist. They are not from any Communist source and have nothing to do with Communism.

And Shaw was not joking, he was SATIRIZING, but you are too STUPID to know the difference.

1. So....you are not prepared to dispute that the Communists and the Democrat Party share the same goals.

Great.

2. Shaw meant every word of it....that's what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats believe....

Here, from their predecessor:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


And here, from Shaw:

1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.
2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

This is why totalitarians slaughtered over 100 million human beings in the last century.

Now the big question: why are you so dumb?

It's just lie on top of lie on top of lie.

Shaw NEVER advocated FORCED selective breeding,and you know it, you lying POS!

You know nothing about Shaw except the misinformation of GOP hate pundits who deliberately take Shaw's SATIRE out of context, in spite of the fact that in Shavian Eugenics women subconsciously select the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the ELECTIVE choice made by women of who they mate with.

In 1910, he wrote that natural attraction, rather than consideration of wealth or social class, should govern selection of marriage partners, hardly the same as the eugenics adopted by the National Socialists of Germany that the GOP hate mongers try to brand him with. Anyone who ever read his works would know better.

Of course you read nothing but Right-wing hate screeds.

In Man and Superman he argued the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process ELECTIVE breeding, referred to as Shavian Eugenics, because he thought it was driven by a "Life Force" that led women—subconsciously—to select the mates most likely to give them superior children.

 

[Ame®icano]

The progressive income tax applies equally to everyone. The taxable income you earn in each bracket is taxed the same as everyone else who earns money in that bracket.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…

2. Yet in benevolence you do the same..Your doing it today in more than one thread....You fail..

Her hilarious demonizing of FDR, for starters.

Let's remind all that you were unable to deny what I posted about him.

In leftard minds, telling the truth IS demonizing.

 

[SAYIT]

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

No, WAGE earners, bot the truly wealthy, pay most of the taxes and that bottom 47% pay payroll taxes which is hardly a free ride.

I wish your post made enough sense to qualify for a response.

BTW, the bottom 48% of all American earners pay NO personal federal income tax and the bottom 20% actually GET money from the treasury.

True story.

 

[SAYIT]

You can wiggle and squirm all you like. America's top earners carry the tax load while the bottom not only gets a free ride, they take cash out of the till.

The top 20% - those making over $134,300/yr - now pays 84% of all federal personal income taxes collected while the bottom 20% are net tax receivers ... what can be described either as gov't sponsored wealth redistribution or punishing success.

Hey asshole, my family income is over 134,300 per year and we are not punished. Fuck you and your bullshit.

If true you and yours are among the lucky group of American earners who carry 84% of the total federal personal tax load.

What would make you happy ... 94%? 104%?

Would you be happy paying more?

Somebody is going to have to cover our current debt and deficit spending and I prefer it be you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can wiggle and squirm all you like. America's top earners carry the tax load while the bottom not only gets a free ride, they take cash out of the till.

The top 20% - those making over $134,300/yr - now pays 84% of all federal personal income taxes collected while the bottom 20% are net tax receivers ... what can be described either as gov't sponsored wealth redistribution or punishing success.

Hey asshole, my family income is over 134,300 per year and we are not punished. Fuck you and your bullshit.

If true you and yours are among the lucky group of American earners who carry 84% of the total federal personal tax load.

What would make you happy ... 94%? 104%?

Would you be happy paying more?

Somebody is going to have to cover our current debt and deficit spending and I prefer it be you.

Let's remind all that, according to the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats....every penny you earn is actually theirs.

FDR supporter Happy Chandler made it very clear:

1. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.” Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism

2." In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
http://www.dailypaul.com/246673/barack-obama-sr-tax-100-of-income-like-father-like-son

 

[edthecynic]

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

No, WAGE earners, not the truly wealthy, pay most of the taxes and that bottom 47% pay payroll taxes which is hardly a free ride.

I wish your post made enough sense to qualify for a response.

BTW, the bottom 48% of all American earners pay NO personal federal income tax and the bottom 20% actually GET money from the treasury.

True story.

Yeah, like PAYROLL taxes do not get taken out of a wage earners income.
2/3 of wage earners pay as much or more in payroll taxes than they do in "income" tax.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can wiggle and squirm all you like. America's top earners carry the tax load while the bottom not only gets a free ride, they take cash out of the till.

The top 20% - those making over $134,300/yr - now pays 84% of all federal personal income taxes collected while the bottom 20% are net tax receivers ... what can be described either as gov't sponsored wealth redistribution or punishing success.

Hey asshole, my family income is over 134,300 per year and we are not punished. Fuck you and your bullshit.

If true you and yours are among the lucky group of American earners who carry 84% of the total federal personal tax load.

What would make you happy ... 94%? 104%?

Would you be happy paying more?

Somebody is going to have to cover our current debt and deficit spending and I prefer it be you.

I'm not happy at all that my taxes pay any Member of the
Congress a dime. They have not earned a penny since the GOP took over the leadership.

I'm not happy my taxes paid for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and still pay for its consequences.

As for taxes, I understand their purpose and don't resent paying them when used productively. Efforts by the GOP to continue to, and to expand, the distribution of our nations wealth to the wealthy, at the expense to hard working men and women, is evil.

 

[dcraelin]

Our country is heading of a debt cliff if it doesnt start taking in more money.........to take it from the low to middle income folks will just hurt the economy. We have to start taking more from the rich...its the only way to stop digging the whole we're in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our country is heading of a debt cliff if it doesnt start taking in more money.........to take it from the low to middle income folks will just hurt the economy. We have to start taking more from the rich...its the only way to stop digging the whole we're in.

You're such a dummy, but have the most interesting avi...

"We have to start taking more from the rich..."

1. Can you state your definition of 'the rich'?

2. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166


3. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

 

[NightFox]

Let's remind all that, according to the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats....every penny you earn is actually theirs.

I can tell you for a fact the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats are wrong on that, every penny I earn belongs to my wife.... if they want that money they're gonna have to fight her for it (good luck with that).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's remind all that, according to the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats....every penny you earn is actually theirs.

I can tell you for a fact the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats are wrong on that, every penny I earn belongs to my wife.... if they want that money they're gonna have to fight her for it (good luck with that).

".... every penny I earn belongs to my wife..."

I like your attitude.

Welcome to the club.

 

[dcraelin]

Our country is heading of a debt cliff if it doesnt start taking in more money.........to take it from the low to middle income folks will just hurt the economy. We have to start taking more from the rich...its the only way to stop digging the whole we're in.

You're such a dummy, but have the most interesting avi...

"We have to start taking more from the rich..."

1. Can you state your definition of 'the rich'?

2. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166


3. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

1) what is your definition?...do they exist?............ I would say generally the top quintile of makers.

2) that is not my assumption.....what is my assumption is that our society has blessed those folks and that taking more from them to pay down the debt would be least hard on the system as a whole.

3) it is not envy .......it is realism

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, well, well....there have been 70 truths about the world revealed in this thread.....

....and it turns out that our Liberal pals require even more re-educaton...

As the finest President in the last 100 years explained it...
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
Ronald Reagan


As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a Liberal.....far be it from me to withhold such important realities, truths.

So...as a public service, today....ten more "Random Truths."




As a major difference between Liberals and the true knights of our era, conservatives, is the response to capitalism, our first lesson today is this:

1. Money is not the root of evil...love of money is.




Conservatives recognize the multitude of positive uses of money, and that it is best used in the hands of those who earn it......not 'spreading the wealth,' by government.



Often misquoted as ‘The business of America is business,” the great Republican President, Calvin Coolidge, really said:

“...After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. …

Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort.

In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture.

Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
January 17, 1925 Given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors




Learn from this, Liberals....do not fear and hate wealth, success, profit.....capitalism.

It is the reason that worldwide poverty is falling.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear chics, simply lying to us and letting us miss our turn is not a very saleable skill set.

does simply being honest with us require too much bravery and too much "equality"?