The bizarre liberal ideology

[P@triot]

More evidence of the bizarre liberal ideology. When something they believe in fails miserably, they don't scrap it and implement something that works. Instead, they double down and triple down on the failure - refusing to accept that their belief was wrong.

Here is Barack Obama begging like a little bitch for private companies to save his failed legislation. He's not mature enough to accept his beliefs are from a failed ideology and to reverse course in favor of doing what is best for the American people. Guess liberals don't "care" about people as much as they claim to!

Obama makes personal pitch to insurers for Obamacare enrollment efforts

 

[Slade3200]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

I believe the literal collapse happened just after 8 years of a republican administration. Your complaint about the obama economy has been slow growth... Not collapse, those two are very different.

 

[Slade3200]

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.

You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.

Wow, you really think you are winning this debate, never mind the multiple comments from multiple posters calling your ideas idiotic and the fact that nobody has supported your position at all. You can't even recall the discussion correctly. You play word games over the definition of distribute which has nothing to do with the conversation. I gave you an example to put it into context that I thought your simple mind would understand, but I guess not. I can't fix stupid so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. You didn't even make it to the table on this arguement. Back to JV with ya.

Bwahahahaha! Exactly, junior. Run away once you've painted yourself into a corner. You proclaim that distribution doesn't exist and doesn't need to for "wealth inequality" and then you turn around and your example is of a "product supply distributor". Any why? Because you're bizarre and immature belief of "wealth inequality" could only exist with someone distributing wealth. If there isn't a centralized body distributing wealth and doing so unfairly, then "wealth inequality" cannot possibly exist. And you know it. Which is why you can't give an accurate analogy that doesn't include a "distributor".

Dude, you are still way off, talking circles on the sideline.... Get your head in the game, nothing of what you are talking about has to do with this discussion. I don't know how many times I need to say it. YOU brought the word distribution into the discussion and claimed that there is no such thing as "Wealth inequality" because there is not a central power that is distributing wealth, and all wealth acquired is earned. My product supply distributor example simply shows that whether it be wealth or products or whatever, these things get distributed through the simple act of commerce and trade. Whether it is earned or given away or stolen is a totally different conversation. REALITY. Wealth exists in our economy and it is distributed, spread, earned, gambled, gained and lost, call it whatever you want... In the end our system has evolved to a point where a very small few own a majority of our nations wealth. This is what "Wealth Inequality" means. This is what the discussion is about. The fact that you deny this situation even exists just shows how out of touch you are.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

I believe the literal collapse happened just after 8 years of a republican administration. Your complaint about the obama economy has been slow growth... Not collapse, those two are very different.

Oh we "collapsed" (in the same context as we did under the Carter Administration). So what happened? Well - the American people turned over the House, the Senate, and their states to conservatives. In spite of Obama's best efforts, they've done a marvelous job of creating enough jobs to keep the economy afloat.

But keep in mind...we have a record number of people out of the labor force. And we have a record number of people on food stamps. So it's near impossible to proclaim that Obama has created "growth" (unless one is talking about growth in poverty, growth in food stamps, growth in unemployment, etc.).

 

[P@triot]

Wealth exists in our economy and it is distributed, spread, earned, gambled, gained and lost, call it whatever you want... In the end our system has evolved to a point where a very small few own a majority of our nations wealth. This is what "Wealth Inequality" means. This is what the discussion is about. The fact that you deny this situation even exists just shows how out of touch you are.

There is nothing "unequal" about it. Each and every person in America has the exact same opportunity to earn the exact same wealth. Some people (such as Bill Gates) capitalize on those opportunities. Some (such as Bernie Sanders) choose to not capitalize on those opportunities and instead spend their lives doing drugs, living at hippie combines, etc. It's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with "inequality".

 

[Slade3200]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

I believe the literal collapse happened just after 8 years of a republican administration. Your complaint about the obama economy has been slow growth... Not collapse, those two are very different.

Oh we "collapsed" (in the same context as we did under the Carter Administration). So what happened? Well - the American people turned over the House, the Senate, and their states to conservatives. In spite of Obama's best efforts, they've done a marvelous job of creating enough jobs to keep the economy afloat.

But keep in mind...we have a record number of people out of the labor force. And we have a record number of people on food stamps. So it's near impossible to proclaim that Obama has created "growth" (unless one is talking about growth in poverty, growth in food stamps, growth in unemployment, etc.).

Im talking about economic growth... actually numbers that, yes, were low, but were also positive. Not a collapse as you very inaccurately stated. The actual collapse actually happened at the end of Bush's reign

 

[Slade3200]

Wealth exists in our economy and it is distributed, spread, earned, gambled, gained and lost, call it whatever you want... In the end our system has evolved to a point where a very small few own a majority of our nations wealth. This is what "Wealth Inequality" means. This is what the discussion is about. The fact that you deny this situation even exists just shows how out of touch you are.

There is nothing "unequal" about it. Each and every person in America has the exact same opportunity to earn the exact same wealth. Some people (such as Bill Gates) capitalize on those opportunities. Some (such as Bernie Sanders) choose to not capitalize on those opportunities and instead spend their lives doing drugs, living at hippie combines, etc. It's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with "inequality".

Jesus, you are hopeless... Playing the word games again? Wealth inequality does not mean that all people should own an equal amount of wealth you dumbshit. I've explained it multiple times and even simplified it for the simple minded, did that just for you... and you come back with this crap?? Talk about moving the goalposts. You're done

 

[P@triot]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

I believe the literal collapse happened just after 8 years of a republican administration. Your complaint about the obama economy has been slow growth... Not collapse, those two are very different.

Oh we "collapsed" (in the same context as we did under the Carter Administration). So what happened? Well - the American people turned over the House, the Senate, and their states to conservatives. In spite of Obama's best efforts, they've done a marvelous job of creating enough jobs to keep the economy afloat.

But keep in mind...we have a record number of people out of the labor force. And we have a record number of people on food stamps. So it's near impossible to proclaim that Obama has created "growth" (unless one is talking about growth in poverty, growth in food stamps, growth in unemployment, etc.).

Im talking about economic growth... actually numbers that, yes, were low, but were also positive. Not a collapse as you very inaccurately stated. The actual collapse actually happened at the end of Bush's reign

Yeah....uh....no. No it didn't. The highest unemployment ever reached under George W. Bush was 7.5%. The highest it reached under Obama was 10.5%. That is a HUGE difference. Almost 50% more. Also, we didn't have record number of people out of the labor force under Bush and we didn't have a record number of people on food stamps under Bush. Nice try. But the facts show what actually happened. It was catastrophic under the Dumbocrats. It improved greatly after the 2010 mid-terms when the American people kicked their asses to the curb in record numbers.

 

[Slade3200]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

I believe the literal collapse happened just after 8 years of a republican administration. Your complaint about the obama economy has been slow growth... Not collapse, those two are very different.

Oh we "collapsed" (in the same context as we did under the Carter Administration). So what happened? Well - the American people turned over the House, the Senate, and their states to conservatives. In spite of Obama's best efforts, they've done a marvelous job of creating enough jobs to keep the economy afloat.

But keep in mind...we have a record number of people out of the labor force. And we have a record number of people on food stamps. So it's near impossible to proclaim that Obama has created "growth" (unless one is talking about growth in poverty, growth in food stamps, growth in unemployment, etc.).

Im talking about economic growth... actually numbers that, yes, were low, but were also positive. Not a collapse as you very inaccurately stated. The actual collapse actually happened at the end of Bush's reign

Yeah....uh....no. No it didn't. The highest unemployment ever reached under George W. Bush was 7.5%. The highest it reached under Obama was 10.5%. That is a HUGE difference. Almost 50% more. Also, we didn't have record number of people out of the labor force under Bush and we didn't have a record number of people on food stamps under Bush. Nice try. But the facts show what actually happened. It was catastrophic under the Dumbocrats. It improved greatly after the 2010 mid-terms when the American people kicked their asses to the curb in record numbers.

Are you trying to be comical?

Care to explain how Obama was responsible for the drop from 5-10% within his first year of being president

 

[P@triot]

Care to explain how Obama was responsible for the drop from 5-10% within his first year of being president

He doesn't need to be president for "x" amount of time to do damage. He caused the market to begin to tumble just by being elected. Once a radical marxist who had spent his entire public life demonizing capitalism and threatening to "get" people who were wealthy and successful was officially elected, the markets started to panic. People started scaling back immediately in preparation for him and his radical policies.

That's what businesses do. They prepare for what is coming. That's why they have strategic planning.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

Supply side created tremendous wealth and tremendous disparity in who got to keep it

It created a powerless working class just like the "job creators" wanted

 

[P@triot]

Supply side created tremendous wealth and tremendous disparity in who got to keep it

The people who earned it got to keep it. That's the way it is supposed to be.

It created a powerless working class just like the "job creators" wanted

The "working class" isn't intended to hold power. If you want power, start your own company. If you want the cushy situation of working for someone else (where you didn't have to take the risk, you're not responsible for making payroll, etc.), than accept the fact that you surrender power during business hours.

 

[Slade3200]

Care to explain how Obama was responsible for the drop from 5-10% within his first year of being president

He doesn't need to be president for "x" amount of time to do damage. He caused the market to begin to tumble just by being elected. Once a radical marxist who had spent his entire public life demonizing capitalism and threatening to "get" people who were wealthy and successful was officially elected, the markets started to panic. People started scaling back immediately in preparation for him and his radical policies.

That's what businesses do. They prepare for what is coming. That's why they have strategic planning.

Haha yeah right it was just a liberal being elected, nothing to do with the housing crash which effected the world economy.

Keep running with those genius theories man. You do my work for me

 

[P@triot]

Care to explain how Obama was responsible for the drop from 5-10% within his first year of being president

He doesn't need to be president for "x" amount of time to do damage. He caused the market to begin to tumble just by being elected. Once a radical marxist who had spent his entire public life demonizing capitalism and threatening to "get" people who were wealthy and successful was officially elected, the markets started to panic. People started scaling back immediately in preparation for him and his radical policies.

That's what businesses do. They prepare for what is coming. That's why they have strategic planning.

Haha yeah right it was just a liberal being elected, nothing to do with the housing crash which effected the world economy.

Keep running with those genius theories man. You do my work for me

Yeah...it did have a lot to do with the housing market collapse. Caused by Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act which removed all risks from banks and incentivized them to make loans to people who were previously denied because they could not afford the loan.

And yes....Obama had spent years demonizing capitalism and his entire campaign promising to do "X", "Y", and "Z" (such as when he infamously told Joe the Plumber "I think the way you do that is to spread the wealth"). So once elected, the markets reacted. That's how it works genius. There was panic as corporations immediately starting scaling back to ensure that they could weather the storm of the pending onslaught that Obama has promised everyone.

(I never cease to marvel at how progressives need even the most fundamental realities of life explained to them. No wonder these people can't feed themselves)

 

[P@triot]

So much for the progressive narrative that they are the party of "change". They keep feeding themselves more of the same, tired, old Dumbocrat nonsense. Donald Trump is the ultimate change (from never being in office before, to how he ran a campaign, to how he says what he wants to say and doesn't give a damn what anybody thinks). And he's a life long Dumbocrat. So one has to wonder why progressives hate him so much? Maybe they see progressivism for what it really is (vile, evil, disgusting, disgraceful, despicable, etc.) when it marches along with a fake, tiny little (R) behind it...

Trump scored his first major newspaper endorsement of the cycle yesterday when the Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed him for President. According to the newspaper’s editorial board, “[h]istory tells us that agents for reform often generate fear and alarm among those intent on preserving their cushy sinecures. It’s hardly a shock, then, that the 2016 campaign has produced a barrage of unceasing vitriol directed toward Mr. Trump.”

Donald Trump scores his first major newspaper endorsement

 

[P@triot]

You have to love progressive "logic". Rather than restoring trust by simply telling the truth and conducting one's self with the upmost integrity, progressive are suggesting we indoctrinate school children to simply believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. Can you say "North Korea"?!?

Yahoo News Columnist Wants Schools to Indoctrinate Kids to Trust Mainstream Media

 

[bripat9643]

You have to love progressive "logic". Rather than restoring trust by simply telling the truth and conducting one's self with the upmost integrity, progressive are suggesting we indoctrinate school children to simply believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. Can you say "North Korea"?!?

Yahoo News Columnist Wants Schools to Indoctrinate Kids to Trust Mainstream Media

Telling the truth is the last thing a leftwinger will ever do.

 

[Slade3200]

You have to love progressive "logic". Rather than restoring trust by simply telling the truth and conducting one's self with the upmost integrity, progressive are suggesting we indoctrinate school children to simply believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. Can you say "North Korea"?!?

Yahoo News Columnist Wants Schools to Indoctrinate Kids to Trust Mainstream Media

You read infowars? They are worse than Breitbart

 

[SYTFE]

The more wild-eyed the source, the more likely P@triot is to read it.

 

[P@triot]

You have to love progressive "logic". Rather than restoring trust by simply telling the truth and conducting one's self with the upmost integrity, progressive are suggesting we indoctrinate school children to simply believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. Can you say "North Korea"?!?

Yahoo News Columnist Wants Schools to Indoctrinate Kids to Trust Mainstream Media

You read infowars? They are worse than Breitbart

I read everything. The question is - why don't you?

I've linked articles from CNN, MSNBC, Slate.com, and more right here in USMB.

By the way - you can verify the statement for yourself. Why do you attack the messenger instead of the appalling message?