The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[Bern80]

Many here so far have said that social democrats are a myth. That teh basic ideas of the article posted are 'stupid' and that there is not truth to it. The article in short says what I have said many times before this was once a place of equal opportunity but the liberal element of this country has sought to make it a land of equal outcomes, by legilslation if necessary.

Do we not have a progressive tax system where the more money you have the more tax you pay? For the purpose of funding social programs to benefit those that do not have money?

So bent on equal outcomes our some members of this board they have used as one reason why abortion should be allowed. Because children born to parents that didn't want them will have difficult lives and so we must spare them.

I simply don't understand why board members like Shogun and MM and don't stand up with pride when articles like this are written and sat 'damn right that's me.' "I do want legislated equality." It's what you want isn't it?

 

[Diuretic]

The original article, being lifted from Stormfront.org, has that real Nazi feel about its prose. The central idea, that "socialist liberals" (an oxymoron but never mind) are "sentimental" reeks of ein volk, ein Reich....It's just another nutter piece.

 

[maineman]

Many here so far have said that social democrats are a myth. That the basic ideas of the article posted are 'stupid' and that there is not truth to it. The article in short says what I have said many times before this was once a place of equal opportunity but the liberal element of this country has sought to make it a land of equal outcomes, by legislation if necessary.

Do we not have a progressive tax system where the more money you have the more tax you pay? For the purpose of funding social programs to benefit those that do not have money?

I simply don't understand why board members like Shogun and MM and don't stand up with pride when articles like this are written and sat 'damn right that's me.' "I do want legislated equality." It's what you want isn't it?

Oh...and this "progressive tax system" is some new invention of the liberal democrats of the 21st century?

Newsflash: we have had a progressive tax system since income tax was first enacted. And kinder hearted republicans than you since the turn of the last century have accepted that a progressive tax burden was nothing less than noblesse oblige. It has only been with the rise to prominence of the Ronnie Reagan selfish racist conservatives, that such an obligation for all the good that society and station had bestowed upon them became onerous for the republican party.

"I got mine. fuck everybody else."

Here's the scoop: I, in fact, have MINE. I have a lot of money. I have made my share of money. I have a nice Navy pension to fall back on. I inherited a lot of money. I don't begrudge my tax burden in any way. I know that there are folks in America who do not have the mental or physical attributes that I do. I know that there are folks in America who struggle to make ends meet. I have no desire to divest all that I have in a futile effort to make them "equal" to me in terms of assets, but I do not quibble with society's efforts to ensure that they poorest among us does not suffer while I "dine" on excess. I feel certain, by reading the words in red, that such an attitude is what Jesus wants me to have.


I realize that the political process is always moving the line between haves and have nots...but, in spirit, I believe what Huey Long said nearly a century ago: "Nobody ought to have too much if there is anyone who doesn't have enough"

 

[Bern80]

Oh...and this "progressive tax system" is some new invention of the liberal democrats of the 21st century?

never said it was. When are you gonna stop assuming things? It just makes you look stupid.

Newsflash: we have had a progressive tax system since income tax was first enacted. And kinder hearted republicans than you since the turn of the last century have accepted that a progressive tax burden was nothing less than noblesse oblige. It has only been with the rise to prominence of the Ronnie Reagan selfish racist conservatives, that such an obligation for all the good that society and station had bestowed upon them became onerous for the republican party.

and for the last fucking time MM. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.

"I got mine. fuck everybody else."

No it's I worked my ass off for mine, fuck those that refuse to do the same and instead just take mine

Here's the scoop: I, in fact, have MINE. I have a lot of money. I have made my share of money. I have a nice Navy pension to fall back on. I inherited a lot of money. I don't begrudge my tax burden in any way. I know that there are folks in America who do not have the mental or physical attributes that I do. I know that there are folks in America who struggle to make ends meet. I have no desire to divest all that I have in a futile effort to make them "equal" to me in terms of assets, but I do not quibble with society's efforts to ensure that they poorest among us does not suffer while I "dine" on excess. I feel certain, by reading the words in red, that such an attitude is what Jesus wants me to have.

Then we simply have a difference of opinion as to who is getting our money. I am well aware that there are people that need help and I have no problem doing that via taxes. But I beleive those people are far outweighed by those that simply refuse to put forth the effort coupled with the liberal mindset of many domocrats and congress that think a govt program is teh answer to everything. That think everyone in American is entitled to a risk/pain/worry/free of any inconvenience life.

 

[red states rule]

never said it was. When are you gonna stop assuming things? It just makes you look stupid.



and for the last fucking time MM. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.




No it's I worked my ass off for mine, fuck those that refuse to do the same and instead just take mine




Then we simply have a difference of opinion as to who is getting our money. I am well aware that there are people that need help and I have no problem doing that via taxes. But I beleive those people are far outweighed by those that simply refuse to put forth the effort.

Because of that difference, libs like MM lash out with his the usual anger and insults.

Libs will never admit the producers pay over 50% of their income in taxes - yet it is not enough. Wealth transfers do not work and have a history of failure of solving problems

 

[red states rule]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PTDOM80&show_article=1&catnum=0



House Panel OKs $153M in Earmarks

Jun 21 04:13 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Appropriations Committee Thursday approved $153 million in pet projects, rewarding both powerful and not-so-powerful lawmakers alike with 377 cherished "earmarks" for their home districts.
The unusual session was made necessary after Republicans forced Democrats to reverse plans to insert pet projects into bills before House debates rather than add them in closed-door House-Senate talks when it would be too late to challenge them.

Of more pressing importance to lawmakers, however, is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., have issued an edict cutting the amount of money devoted to earmarks in half. Obey denied all earmarks when passing a wrap-up spending bill earlier this year.

"Many members will be disappointed," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., chairman of a panel responsible for local clean water and sewer grants and national parks projects.

Republicans are especially feeling the pinch. Now that they're in the minority, they only get about 40 percent of the money for projects rather than the 60 percent they enjoyed when controlling Congress. The fact that earmarks are being cut in half doubles the pinch.

Seven-term GOP Rep. Zach Wamp's requests for Environmental Protection Agency water and sewer grants in Tennesee were not granted, though Democrats heeded calls for freshmen lawmakers facing potentially difficult re-election campaigns.

For example, Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., obtained $500,000 for South Bend's sewer systems and homestate colleague Brad Ellsworth won an equal amount for Evansville. Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney, freshman Democrats from Pennsylvania, also won projects.

New rules require the sponsors of earmarks to be identified and certify that they don't have a financial interest in them.

By long-standing tradition, senior lawmakers and members of the Appropriations Committee get more for their districts than rank and file lawmakers. With the explosion of earmarks under GOP control of Congress, however, more and more earmarks went out to the rank and file as a means of rewarding loyalty to GOP leaders and cementing the political standing of lawmakers back home.




Yes MM, Dems need to raise our taxes to keep feeding the bloated pig of government

De libs rate their compassion by how much of others peoples money they spend?

 

[maineman]

never said it was. When are you gonna stop assuming things? It just makes you look stupid.

when are you gonna quit calling me stupid?


and for the last fucking time MM. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.

you know that line about walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, don't you?


No it's I worked my ass off for mine, fuck those that refuse to do the same and instead just take mine

if that is how you chose to mischaracterize it, that is OK with me



Then we simply have a difference of opinion as to who is getting our money. I am well aware that there are people that need help and I have no problem doing that via taxes. But I believe those people are far outweighed by those that simply refuse to put forth the effort.

We most certainly have a difference of opinion - so for crissakes quit trying to pass your opinion off as factual accuracy. Your beliefs are not borne out by facts. And the amount of the federal budget taken up by welfare programs is a minuscule percentage.

 

[red states rule]

never said it was. When are you gonna stop assuming things? It just makes you look stupid.

when are you gonna quit calling me stupid?


and for the last fucking time MM. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.

you know that line about walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, don't you?


No it's I worked my ass off for mine, fuck those that refuse to do the same and instead just take mine

if that is how you chose to mischaracterize it, that is OK with me



Then we simply have a difference of opinion as to who is getting our money. I am well aware that there are people that need help and I have no problem doing that via taxes. But I believe those people are far outweighed by those that simply refuse to put forth the effort.

We most certainly have a difference of opinion - so for crissakes quit trying to pass your opinion off as factual accuracy. Your beliefs are not borne out by facts. And the amount of the federal budget taken up by welfare programs is a minuscule percentage.

More civility from the left

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh.... and the "truth" really would seem inconsequential to a deviant, child molesting, racist, fascist like you!

Being fairly new to the board I still find this kind of " Humor" offensive. Your little ROFL at the end does not make up for what would be a personal attack that is offensive and would appear to be libel.

Of course if this person really is a child molester perhaps you could provide us with some evidence.

I have noticed you do not take kindly to any "humor" that defames you.

 

[red states rule]

Being fairly new to the board I still find this kind of " Humor" offensive. Your little ROFL at the end does not make up for what would be a personal attack that is offensive and would appear to be libel.

Of course if this person really is a child molester perhaps you could provide us with some evidence.

I have noticed you do not take kindly to any "humor" that defames you.

He had the ROLF at the end of a post where he made fun of Rudy's cancer

 

[red states rule]

Another example of the intolerance of the left, and how they do try and silence voices they do not agree with


Speech Police, Riding High In Oakland
By George Will

Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.

At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.

When the McCain-Feingold law empowered government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech about government, it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech supposedly impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.

That has happened in Oakland. And, predictably, the ineffable U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ratified this abridgement of First Amendment protections. Fortunately, overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/speech_police_riding_high_in_o.html

 

[Bern80]

never said it was. When are you gonna stop assuming things? It just makes you look stupid.

when are you gonna quit calling me stupid?

When you stop assuming people's positions. Simple enough for ya?

you know that line about walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, don't you?

What exactley about me has lead you to believe I support Republicans? The fact that I don't like the left? What about me that you have observed simply screams Republican over say simply conservative? learn the difference.

No it's I worked my ass off for mine, fuck those that refuse to do the same and instead just take mine

if that is how you chose to mischaracterize it, that is OK with me

it is no mischaracterization at all. Taxes consistantly go up to feed an increasinlgy socialist governments notion that it must be all things to all people and mist provide a risk and worry free existance for all. A large chunk of that goes to people, not that can't help themselves but refuse to.

We most certainly have a difference of opinion - so for crissakes quit trying to pass your opinion off as factual accuracy.

When did i do that? You can only go to that well so many times.

Your beliefs are not borne out by facts. And the amount of the federal budget taken up by welfare programs is a minuscule percentage.[/B]

Show m how yours are.

 

[red states rule]

When you stop assuming people's positions. Simple enough for ya?






What exactley about me has lead you to believe I support Republicans? The fact that I don't like the left? What about me that you have observed simply screams Republican over say simply conservative? learn the difference.




it is no mischaracterization at all. Taxes consistantly go up to feed an increasinlgy socialist governments notion that it must be all things to all people and mist provide a risk and worry free existance for all. A large chunk of that goes to people, not that can't help themselves but refuse to.



Then we simply have a difference of opinion as to who is getting our money. I am well aware that there are people that need help and I have no problem doing that via taxes. But I believe those people are far outweighed by those that simply refuse to put forth the effort.

Show m how yours are.[/QUOTE]

Currently, the Federal budget is spending records amounts of the Dems beloved welfare programs and other government handouts

It is a shame to see how many people believe they are ENTITLED to other peoples money

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what have I failed to defend?

I called you a socialist. Instead of defending against that claim you took the coward's back-handed route as most liberals do. You liberals don't like being called what you really are, including your socialist leaders.

This guy Rob says it better than I can:

Hillary Clinton's Socialist Platform
At risk of being labeled some sort of a neo-McCarthyite I wanted to point out this, because it is downright scary. Calling this woman a socialist isn’t hyperbole, it’s fact. Pure and simple.

MANCHESTER, N.H.Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The problem with people like Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx, who envision for the world a utopia where a central authority takes wealth from the many and redistributes it according to the whims and principles of a few (well intentioned or not), is that it requires us all to put all of our faith and wealth into the government. Which is a bad thing because the more power government gets the more corrupt and oppressive it tends to become. Socialism has an awful history when it comes to well-meaning revolutionaries setting up a centrally-controlled government and economy only to find themselves oppressed by the people they appointed or elected to run it. Even here in America, the birthplace of democracy, we find time and again politicians with too much power abusing that power either to enrich themselves and their friends or punish their enemies.

Giving government more power than is absolutely necessary is folly. It is the road to tyranny and oppression at the hands of greedy government bureaucrats and it must be avoided at any cost.

Yet here’s Hillary telling us that we should abandon individuality, abandon self-reliance, and become more dependent on the government. She’s calling this “shared prosperity,” which means that she’s going to take some of your prosperity and force you to share it with your neighbor, who maybe isn’t even working to create his/her own prosperity.

I wish Hillary and the rest of her big-government liberal colleagues would re-read the Declaration of Independence and note that the founders’ intent in establishing this country was to grant our citizens a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No one is guaranteed happiness, but simply the freedom to pursue it. But that’s not what Hillary wants. She wants to try and guarantee everyone in the country happiness, and she’s will to go bankrupt spending your tax dollars to do it.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/hillary_clintons_socialist_platform/

 

[maineman]

if you can redefine the word socialist to mean whatever you want it to mean.... if wanting government to be involved in the distribution of SOME services is the same as the government's control of all the means of production, then you are a fascist, and every person who was charged with assault should be recharged and convicted of first degree murder.

 

[Bern80]

if you can redefine the word socialist to mean whatever you want it to mean.... if wanting government to be involved in the distribution of SOME services is the same as the government's control of all the means of production, then you are a fascist, and every person who was charged with assault should be recharged and convicted of first degree murder.

This is reallyu getting tough for you isn't it. You have yet to directly respond to any opposing viewpoints or direct questions. yet you so often ask it of others.

Instead, even though you quote others , your responses generally have little do with what you quoted, but are generally full of false assumptions of people's stances. You have yet to respond to me calling you out on your claim that I believe all my claims are routed in facts. You have yet to respond to my rebuttal of your asanine duck analogy. At least when I'm wrong I admit it from time to time. You simply change the subject.

Screaming did not redefine socialist. to redistribute wealth is a socialist concept.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

why do we always ask what jesus would do?, At best, its a guess of what we think he would do. I mean, its not like we can fire off an email to him, and besides I thought god gave us free will, so while its appropriate to consult god or jesus, or whatever, shouldnt we make the decision?, and not ask what someone or something else would do?

I dont mean to offend, but i find it ironic how everyone says what would jesus do

 

[actsnoblemartin]

and for god sake, jesus was not a socialist, a conservative or any political party, he was just jesus. he was probably a moderate if you ask me lol
sincerely,

the dorky jewish boy

 

[maineman]

This is reallyu getting tough for you isn't it. You have yet to directly respond to any opposing viewpoints or direct questions. yet you so often ask it of others.

Instead, even though you quote others , your responses generally have little do with what you quoted, but are generally full of false assumptions of people's stances. You have yet to respond to me calling you out on your claim that I believe all my claims are routed in facts. You have yet to respond to my rebuttal of your asanine duck analogy. At least when I'm wrong I admit it from time to time. You simply change the subject.

Screaming did not redefine socialist. to redistribute wealth is a socialist concept.

Are you suggesting that the republican party has not fully supported some form of the redistribution of wealth since its very inception? Does that mean that the republican party is nothing but a pack of socialists as well?

"socialist concepts", as you so quaintly put it, have been a part of both party's legislative agenda since the dawn of income tax. Having socialist concepts in a party's agenda does not mean that the party in question is socialist. Socialism has a very clear and unambiguous definition: it is the government's control over ALL the means of production. period. If you don't advocate government's control over ALL the means of production, then you are not a socialist...and since I don't advocate any such thing, I take umbrage when folks misuse the words and apply it to ME.

and if you are not a "republican" but only a "conservative", I humbly apologize for suggesting the former when only the latter was correct. I wonder why I have never seen you call out RSR for his routine equation of liberals and democrats? And I wonder why, since you are perfectly content with calling me a socialist, you could have the balls to bitch about being called a republican.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Are you suggesting that the republican party has not fully supported some form of the redistribution of wealth since its very inception? Does that mean that the republican party is nothing but a pack of socialists as well?

"socialist concepts", as you so quaintly put it, have been a part of both party's legislative agenda since the dawn of income tax. Having socialist concepts in a party's agenda does not mean that the party in question is socialist. Socialism has a very clear and unambiguous definition: it is the government's control over ALL the means of production. period. If you don't advocate government's control over ALL the means of production, then you are not a socialist...and since I don't advocate any such thing, I take umbrage when folks misuse the words and apply it to ME.

and if you are not a "republican" but only a "conservative", I humbly apologize for suggesting the former when only the latter was correct. I wonder why I have never seen you call out RSR for his routine equation of liberals and democrats? And I wonder why, since you are perfectly content with calling me a socialist, you could have the balls to bitch about being called a republican.

Since I have no clue, what the difference between socialism and communism are, I will simply put this link, and stay out of it lol.

But I will say, I think you can take parts of different political philosophies and ideas, and make a highbrid. For example, would a republican be any less, if he supported abortion, and would a democrat be any less if he was against abortion. I.E. a conservative or liberal, doesnt usually support everything the manifesto of his party or ideas suggests. Such as, in 1991, al gore, and a few other democrats joined the republicans, to invade iraq, when the democrats were nearly all apposed to it, and now many republicans are going against bush, on the war. So, i guess, what im trying to say, is you can be a conservative or liberal, and be 8 shades of gray, cant you?