Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012

[bigrebnc1775]

obama wants to create a new class of Americans called the dependent class.
The more people unable to work the more people will be part of the dependent class.
His agenda is to get as many people to have this need to be on obamacare and he get's his agenda pushed through.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

obama wants to create a new class of Americans called the dependent class.
The more people unable to work the more people will be part of the dependent class.
His agenda is to get as many people to have this need to be on obamacare and he get's his agenda pushed through.

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama wants to create a new class of Americans called the dependent class.
The more people unable to work the more people will be part of the dependent class.
His agenda is to get as many people to have this need to be on obamacare and he get's his agenda pushed through.

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

Irrelevant

When people lose their job they also lose their healthcare coverage, can you think of a better way to get people behind your agenda without creating a need for that agenda?

 

[Oldstyle]

obama wants to create a new class of Americans called the dependent class.
The more people unable to work the more people will be part of the dependent class.
His agenda is to get as many people to have this need to be on obamacare and he get's his agenda pushed through.

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

Tell me, James...do you think that a "dependent class" has developed since the creation of FDR's New Deal and if so why?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

obama wants to create a new class of Americans called the dependent class.
The more people unable to work the more people will be part of the dependent class.
His agenda is to get as many people to have this need to be on obamacare and he get's his agenda pushed through.

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

Tell me, James...do you think that a "dependent class" has developed since the creation of FDR's New Deal and if so why?

That's an interesting question. There are definitely people who depend on government assistance, so yes I'd agree. However, I'm not now, nor will I ever cast a blanket judgment over their folks because a LOT of factors go into making a dependent class.

I would argue that when you have fiscal policies of upward wealth redistribution, where the Middle Class is decimated, and where you have little or no opportunities for education and advancement, then yes you will have a Dependent class.

The ironic part to me is that the Reagan/Bush fiscal policies ended up doing more to divide the classes and create dependency than the actual existence of the entitlement and assistance programs could ever create.

Can't wait to see what this argument gets me.

 

[Oldstyle]

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

Tell me, James...do you think that a "dependent class" has developed since the creation of FDR's New Deal and if so why?

That's an interesting question. There are definitely people who depend on government assistance, so yes I'd agree. However, I'm not now, nor will I ever cast a blanket judgment over their folks because a LOT of factors go into making a dependent class.

I would argue that when you have fiscal policies of upward wealth redistribution, where the Middle Class is decimated, and where you have little or no opportunities for education and advancement, then yes you will have a Dependent class.

The ironic part to me is that the Reagan/Bush fiscal policies ended up doing more to divide the classes and create dependency than the actual existence of the entitlement and assistance programs could ever create.

Can't wait to see what this argument gets me.

Do you think that the number of people who solely depend on government assistance has risen or fallen in the 60 plus years since FDR's New Deal and how much of that do you attribute to the programs themselves?

My point would be that programs that meant well have in fact hurt the very people that they sought to help...and that after 60 years of a gradually accelerating "Nanny State" that we've reached a tipping point where more people are taking from the system then are putting into the system and we have millions of Americans who prefer to be on the dole rather than gainfully employed.

I'm rather amused by your contention that there is no opportunity for education or advancement in our society.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Blah blah blah. Things that Conservatives have been saying about Progressives since FDR's New Deal blah blah blah.

"Lincoln wants to create a new class of Americans called Black Americans!" -A Conservative in the 1860s.

Tell me, James...do you think that a "dependent class" has developed since the creation of FDR's New Deal and if so why?

That's an interesting question. There are definitely people who depend on government assistance, so yes I'd agree. However, I'm not now, nor will I ever cast a blanket judgment over their folks because a LOT of factors go into making a dependent class.

I would argue that when you have fiscal policies of upward wealth redistribution, where the Middle Class is decimated, and where you have little or no opportunities for education and advancement, then yes you will have a Dependent class.

The ironic part to me is that the Reagan/Bush fiscal policies ended up doing more to divide the classes and create dependency than the actual existence of the entitlement and assistance programs could ever create.

Can't wait to see what this argument gets me.

What a big pile of bull shit.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

I disagree. I think the dependent class has been a part of single society that had an economy. Seriously. There have always been haves and have-nots. The question and debate is over whether you think your government should wallow in "Life's not fair' or accept it and try to make things a little easier for the people its sworn to protect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tell me, James...do you think that a "dependent class" has developed since the creation of FDR's New Deal and if so why?

That's an interesting question. There are definitely people who depend on government assistance, so yes I'd agree. However, I'm not now, nor will I ever cast a blanket judgment over their folks because a LOT of factors go into making a dependent class.

I would argue that when you have fiscal policies of upward wealth redistribution, where the Middle Class is decimated, and where you have little or no opportunities for education and advancement, then yes you will have a Dependent class.

The ironic part to me is that the Reagan/Bush fiscal policies ended up doing more to divide the classes and create dependency than the actual existence of the entitlement and assistance programs could ever create.

Can't wait to see what this argument gets me.

Do you think that the number of people who solely depend on government assistance has risen or fallen in the 60 plus years since FDR's New Deal and how much of that do you attribute to the programs themselves?

My point would be that programs that meant well have in fact hurt the very people that they sought to help...and that after 60 years of a gradually accelerating "Nanny State" that we've reached a tipping point where more people are taking from the system then are putting into the system and we have millions of Americans who prefer to be on the dole rather than gainfully employed.

I'm rather amused by your contention that there is no opportunity for education or advancement in our society.

Or more so under obama?

 

[Oldstyle]

I disagree. I think the dependent class has been a part of single society that had an economy. Seriously. There have always been haves and have-nots. The question and debate is over whether you think your government should wallow in "Life's not fair' or accept it and try to make things a little easier for the people its sworn to protect.

You think that the dependent class has been a part of single society that had an economy? What does that mean, James? Seriously.

The real debate here is whether government's attempts to "make things a little easier for the people its sworn to protect" have done so...or whether those attempts have actually resulted in a class of society that doesn't feel the need to work and feels entitled to be given things by the people who do?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

It was a typo, obviously. It should have read "every single." Meaning every one. Meaning all of them.

They have absolutely done good. Or would you prefer they die and decrease the surplus population?

 

[koshergrl]

It was a typo, obviously. It should have read "every single." Meaning every one. Meaning all of them.

They have absolutely done good. Or would you prefer they die and decrease the surplus population?

That's some mighty fine journalism there, Clark.

BTW, wanting a population to die out and animosity towards imaginary *surplus* population is a progressive thing. You're projecting, Nazi.

 

[California Girl]

It was a typo, obviously. It should have read "every single." Meaning every one. Meaning all of them.

They have absolutely done good. Or would you prefer they die and decrease the surplus population?

I have a question. Why won't you answer my question?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

To no one in particular:

I have family that died in the Holocaust. Calling me a Nazi sucks.

And I'm glad you missed the reference. Says a LOT about you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

By James Schlarmann

Over the last couple of weeks, the Right Wing has trotted out the idea that this 2012 Presidential Election is going to be a referendum on Barack Obama. They claim that the American people have been let down by the President’s economic performance, and that it’s time get the good ol’ tricke down started again. They claim that so many people are out of work and hurting financially, and they know it’s because Obama has failed to pull us out of the Depression (seriously, it’s a Depression that we’re in), and thus this election will be all about Americans saying “no” to the Obama Administration.

The thing is, they’re right about this election being a referendum. And maybe they could be right about it being a referendum on Obama, but only for their own electorate. Instead, I think there’s a much larger picture being painted with this election, and it’s for the moral compass of this country’s economy and social policy. For the first time in many, many years, Americans are being asked to dictate the direction of the country not just in terms of its economy’s heart and soul, but of the heart and soul of the nation’s stated beliefs when it comes to human rights. The Mitt Romney/Tea Party/George W. Bush/Grover Norquist/Wall Street is King/Greed is Good message of fiscal and social extremism is really what’s on trial here. As much as the GOP would have you believe this election is about the other guy, is much more about them, and their apparent decision to let the lunatic fringe of their party drive the ship.

The War on Women, the Fight Against Marriage Equality and the Let the Rich Get Richer forces of the Republican party are going to be put under intense scrutiny by the Obama campaign, and they may be shocked when their messages of intolerance, devolution and Plutocracy are left to die on the vine.

All over the nation, people are being given a choice. Conservatives now more than ever are trying to rush us into a massive nuclear-powered Delorean and take us as far backward as they can, be it a social issue or a fiscal policy. People like Paul Ryan are proposing budgets that kill social programs but pump still even more money into the Defense budget. Over a thousand bills restricting women’s health care and access to abortions and contraceptives have been introduced since the rise of the Tea Party. The storm is gathering, and showdown is coming.

More: Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012 | The Political Garbage Chute

That's so fucked up....

"Greed is good"

You stupid motherfuckers are the greedy ones - you loath anyone that has something you don't have..... Oh and don't get me started with assholes like Soros who you fucking dickheads have no problem with, yet you throw the "Koch brothers" under the bus...

You leftists are hypocrites......

Oh yeah mean while Obamafuck is having lavish $35,000 fundraising dinners in Hollywood elitists actors houses (among other places)......

Not many non-progressives would pay $35,000 for a fucking meal and meat-n-greet....

Then you call non-union self-made wealthy non-progressives "greedy?" when you're the ones bitching and crying "no fair - give us some free Obama money."

Fucking bastard fucks...

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

That's so fucked up....

"Greed is good"

You stupid motherfuckers are the greedy ones - you loath anyone that has something you don't have..... Oh and don't get me started with assholes like Soros who you fucking dickheads have no problem with, yet you throw the "Koch brothers" under the bus...

There's one George Soros. There are many, many Conservative SuperPACs.

You leftists are hypocrites......

Yes. And the Right Wing is never hypocritical. Unless it involves whinging about the size of government and government spending and then electing a man into office twice who not only spent our country into a MASSIVE deficit with two wholly unfunded wars, he expanded the size of government by creating a whole new governmental agency. There is that. But that's not hypocrisy, right?

Oh yeah mean while Obamafuck is having lavish $35,000 fundraising dinners in Hollywood elitists actors houses (among other places)......

And Romney is having fundraisers with Birthers and billionaires. What's the difference, exactly again?

Not many non-progressives would pay $35,000 for a fucking meal and meat-n-greet....

I don't know what the plates cost at the Trump Birtheralooza Fundraiser, but I bet they weren't what you or I could afford. And gee, it kind of sounds like YOU are the one being jealous of those who can afford $35,000 a plate dinners, aren't you? Who are you to tell them how they can or can't spend their money? Isn't that what you Conservatives love to tell us when we point out how much anonymous cash is being dumped into SuperPACs? That it's none of our business how much anyone spends on anything?

Then you call non-union self-made wealthy non-progressives "greedy?" when you're the ones bitching and crying "no fair - give us some free Obama money."

So...self-made means getting a HAND-OUT from your parents now? Cool.

Fucking bastard fucks...

I do like your swearing style though. No gripes on that. Seriously.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

By James Schlarmann

Over the last couple of weeks, the Right Wing has trotted out the idea that this 2012 Presidential Election is going to be a referendum on Barack Obama. They claim that the American people have been let down by the President’s economic performance, and that it’s time get the good ol’ tricke down started again. They claim that so many people are out of work and hurting financially, and they know it’s because Obama has failed to pull us out of the Depression (seriously, it’s a Depression that we’re in), and thus this election will be all about Americans saying “no” to the Obama Administration.

The thing is, they’re right about this election being a referendum. And maybe they could be right about it being a referendum on Obama, but only for their own electorate. Instead, I think there’s a much larger picture being painted with this election, and it’s for the moral compass of this country’s economy and social policy. For the first time in many, many years, Americans are being asked to dictate the direction of the country not just in terms of its economy’s heart and soul, but of the heart and soul of the nation’s stated beliefs when it comes to human rights. The Mitt Romney/Tea Party/George W. Bush/Grover Norquist/Wall Street is King/Greed is Good message of fiscal and social extremism is really what’s on trial here. As much as the GOP would have you believe this election is about the other guy, is much more about them, and their apparent decision to let the lunatic fringe of their party drive the ship.

The War on Women, the Fight Against Marriage Equality and the Let the Rich Get Richer forces of the Republican party are going to be put under intense scrutiny by the Obama campaign, and they may be shocked when their messages of intolerance, devolution and Plutocracy are left to die on the vine.

All over the nation, people are being given a choice. Conservatives now more than ever are trying to rush us into a massive nuclear-powered Delorean and take us as far backward as they can, be it a social issue or a fiscal policy. People like Paul Ryan are proposing budgets that kill social programs but pump still even more money into the Defense budget. Over a thousand bills restricting women’s health care and access to abortions and contraceptives have been introduced since the rise of the Tea Party. The storm is gathering, and showdown is coming.

More: Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012 | The Political Garbage Chute

What a bunch of gibberish.

I should neg you and the author.Dunno why I bother to click on your dumbass threads anylonger.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

I have sadly come to the realization it has always been the intention of those we elect (Right or Left) to convince us that we never need vote again. I salute them for they've done at least one damn good job. But then ask yourself, why bother since We the People keep electing those same assholes over and over again.

I believe it was Einstein who said the definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

 

[Oldstyle]

It was a typo, obviously. It should have read "every single." Meaning every one. Meaning all of them.

They have absolutely done good. Or would you prefer they die and decrease the surplus population?

My pointing out that the very programs that progressives thought would help people may have actually harmed them does not mean that I prefer they "die". Your making that accusation is rather amusing actually. It's the kind of hyperbole that desperate people fall back on when they can't make a compelling argument.

I'm curious as to why you think a system that encourages generation after generation to stay on government assistance "helps". You talk about a lack of opportunity for advancement? If you REALLY want to put yourself in a position where you have little chance of advancing yourself then go welfare and stay there. That's what your New Deal progressive programs have ultimately meant to a large percentage of the population...a systematic incentive to not work and not better ones self.

 

[The T]

It was a typo, obviously. It should have read "every single." Meaning every one. Meaning all of them.

They have absolutely done good. Or would you prefer they die and decrease the surplus population?

Are you employed by Soros?