Threat of Fascism in American Politics

[Anachronism]

Anachronism, you get the prize for having one of the better posts. I understand the grey area, I'll use the union example from my previous post. Unions can do both shitty and good things to his country as can corporations. In American style democracy both factions are supposed to be represented, but not under Tea Party ideas. When I am critical of Fox News, it is because their network takes the stance union bad, corporation good.

I'm not a Tea Party member, personally. I don't find them to be ACTIVE enough in what they claim to want to do. I'm probably about three or four steps further to the Right of the political spectrum from the Tea Party. To that end, I'll be honest that I'm not terribly interested in open mindedness or debate on socio-political issues.

Most people's values are greatly influenced by their family. My political conscious, and my notion of right and wrong come from this group. I am accusing the Tea Party of putting a mask of liberty and democracy over the face of fascism, defining democracy and liberty as what is more commonly defined as fascism.

I will agree with you that the Tea Party should be more open about what their true interests are. Then again I've never been accused of being a major proponent of Liberty or Democracy. I'm an Authoritarian at heart. Not quite too the level of Fascism, but not all that far away either.

Maybe my point is being misinterpreted. Do Tea Party supporters realize they are calling for a fascist US government, and that's what they want, or are they just stupid? It's obvious that fascism is the goal of this organization.

I can't speak for the Tea Party, but as for those of us who I would call Conservatives, I would suggest that YES we are well aware that what we're talking about is Authoritarianism. Unfortunately at this time and with the current citizenry/population of this country I/We don't see any other way to straighten things out.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You continue to try to baffle with bullshit, because you cannot dazzle with brilliance. You are a ideologue idiot, and have no redeeming characteristics in discussion whatsoever.

WOW. I just had an aneurism on account of your stupidity. Just because someone has made an argument before doesn't make it wrong. In fact it demonstrates there is validity to my argument, because I'm NOT the only one who is realizing the fascism in the tea party. You just proved me right again. Thanks.

You offer no definition of fascism and cannot say my logic is flawed because you have not offered any of your own. You assert that because many people on this board agree with me that I am wrong, which seems like flawed logic to me.


PS I am boring because you need to sharpen your reading comprehension, vocabulary, and debate skills.

PPS You should really run for office as a tea party candidate. You make a nematode appear to be able to solve complex calculus problems, by comparison.

Spoken like a "Man of the People." Who is this douchebag?

I am a libertarian. I believe in the foundations of the Constitution, where individual right is a major construct, for example, the bill of rights.

I am not denying that industry and a free market are bad. I am arguing, the literature that influenced the writing of the constitution also viewed every citizen has the right to agency in the government.

Tea Partiers are saying; "we need to give business more leniency," and they don't mean small independent business, they mean big corporate business. "They need these tax breaks," even though the mistakes of those involved with business lead us in to this recession/depression, and contribute to the unemployment rate by moving jobs to China.

"We need to disband unions, because they hinder business," and that way we can go back to the days when 8 year olds worked in coal mines and textile factories, or when sausages at the supermarket had human fingers in them, and medicine could be toxic.

The notion that we should allow business to have anymore right than it does now is... well, more retarded than Marauder and Uncensored, and its fascist because individuals have no right to agency, therefore forced to be subservient to a corporate order, with no ability to determine life in this nation, again fascism explained.

 

[hst_patriot]

Marauder, you just don't understand because you have an intelligence deficit greater than the budget deficit.
Why is this bullshit, not brilliance? Why am I an ideologue idiot? Explain yourself.

You spew diarrhea from your mouth and claim its a symphony. I am calling you a retard because you fail to back up your opinion with logic. You need to explain why and maybe you will develop an intelligent thought.

 

[hst_patriot]

I can't speak for the Tea Party, but as for those of us who I would call Conservatives, I would suggest that YES we are well aware that what we're talking about is Authoritarianism. Unfortunately at this time and with the current citizenry/population of this country I/We don't see any other way to straighten things out.

What needs to be straightened out? The economy? Deviance? I'm not trying to imply there are no problems. But please specify why authoritarianism is necessary.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Marauder, you just don't understand because you have an intelligence deficit greater than the budget deficit.
Why is this bullshit, not brilliance? Why am I an ideologue idiot? Explain yourself.

You spew diarrhea from your mouth and claim its a symphony. I am calling you a retard because you fail to back up your opinion with logic. You need to explain why and maybe you will develop an intelligent thought.

You're just a gnat. Not annoying eough to swat, like a fly, just a very generic gnat and we definitely have alot of them here. You're no different, and certainly not original.

 

[hst_patriot]

Never claimed to be original, actually I've been claiming to be imitating the ideas that influenced the Constitution, which is over 200 years old, very unoriginal. However, unoriginal as it may be, its democracy. I'm annoying? That's not logic. That's being pissed off that you continue to embarrass yourself.

You know you are incapable of debate. I'm trying to have a debate about fascism and why some people think it's acceptable in American, which is a monumentally important issue. You are making a mockery of this debate by complaining about that people are opposed the hypocrisy of the right.

I annoy you because I can employ logic in my argument, generally when others cannot employ logic in their own argument they become annoyed.

You do not annoy me. I find your stupidity amusing. You've literally spent all day embarrassing yourself. You failed to quit while you were ahead. My advice is to read about logic, reason, and debate, and maybe next time you won't expose your ignorance.

 

[Anachronism]

What needs to be straightened out? The economy? Deviance? I'm not trying to imply there are no problems. But please specify why authoritarianism is necessary.

What DOESN'T need to be straightened out? I could write several "War and Peace" sized books on what is wrong with our society, our economy, our culture, etc.... I'd be here writing for the rest of my life. I'd rather get to the heart of your last sentence instead, because the rest of it is really just padding for the arguement.

Authoritarianism is necessary because the American people do not have the heart, the guts, the brains, or most importantly the backbone to do what it is going to take to straighten this country out. The American people have become SOFT. The Greatest Generation has to be spinning like gyroscopes in their graves, nevermind what the Founders must think of us. We are no longer willing to do the HARD thing simply because it's the RIGHT thing to do. No, instead we look for the EASY way out. Even if it's not what is in our overall or long-term best interest.

This country was founded by a bunch of Men who made a very naive assumption.... The idea that morals, values, and decency were the foundation of the governmental system and society/culture and that they would remain that way in perpetuity. They made this assumption because the morals and values they lived under were the same ones that had been in place almost world-wide for several hundred years at least. The societal and social structure was pretty well set in stone and they didn't expect that to change. To that end they failed to include the Duties and Responsibilities of a Citizen along with the Rights and Privileges of one in our Founding Documents.

Morals and values are no longer part of our society or culture. They have been abandoned and tossed aside, and it is destroying the social and cultural fabric of this country and taking the economy with it. There are really only three groups that can control the morals and values of a society.... Family/society is the best of the three options and the one that was most at play in the time of our Founders. Religion is the second, and it played a large part in that day and age as well. Government is the least preferable of the options and the one the Founders prefered to stay away from. Family/society no longer chooses to teach or enforce any level of moral standard. Religion is no longer a major factor in American society. That leaves only Government to enforce those standards, without which the entire fabric and foundation of this country crumble away and we cease to exist.

Basically what I'm saying is that the American people are too STUPID, SLOVENLY, LAZY, GLUTONOUS, and IMMORAL to be allowed to rule themselves anymore. MAYBE, at some point in the future they could be allowed to return to some active participation in their own governance, but not until they have proven a much greater capability for choosing RIGHT over EASY at a 100% rate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:

Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.

Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.

Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.

Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its Tenets of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics. Through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security. Ultimately these republics morphed into Fascist states."

Link: Definition of Fascism: What it is, how to recognize it and the key principles behind it

 

[hst_patriot]

Good Job Anachronism, you exhibited logic and reason, unlike Marauder who should examine your debate skills that way he won't look so stupid next time.

1. I would argue that American's are lazy because of the "Advertising Lullaby" (George Carlin). We have become obsessed with obtaining material goods, over taking pride in our work. This is a result of business. The motivation to succeed in America, and I am generalizing, is to buy a better TV, etc. Goods here are made cheap, brake quickly, and sold expensively to maximize profit, i.e. planed and perceived obsolescence.

Citizens are lazy because our dominant class determines value by meaningless wealth assets. Advertising in America perpetuates the belief that material represents value instead of determination.

I need to elaborate, I am not a marxist. I believe if you do a more difficult job you should be paid more; Mopping floors is vastly less difficult than performing surgery, that's why janitors make less than doctors.

If Americans are lazy because of the values of the authoritarians you support.

The founding fathers stated in the Constitution that Americans had the right to alter government if it becomes tyrannical; an excessive power of authority. With respect to individual rights, means that one group does not get to dominate power in America.

You say this is naive, I say when individuals have agency in in government society becomes stronger. Different factions are allowed to represent their interest, and are able to argue their position. When "the facts are in", as they say, informed decisions can be made because whatever the issue is, its effects on all groups can be considered.

Morals and values do exist in America, its just that conservatives believe every citizen should adhere to their ideology. We should all be Christian, kiss the feet of our corporate masters even though they want us to pay for their mistakes, and support ANY military action by the US.

My morals and values are determined by the Constitution and my family and friends. I do not subscribe to the belief their is ONE correct way to view the world, neither does my family and constitution. History has proved this because different cultures have existed. You say you want authoritarianism to straighten America out, that is untrue, you want ultimate authoritarianism, you just don't want people to know they are living under an authoritarian.

"Basically what I'm saying is that the American people are too STUPID, SLOVENLY, LAZY, GLUTONOUS, and IMMORAL to be allowed to rule themselves anymore." - Anachronism

The most lazy, stupid and gluttonous are the people with the most agency in government and society.
To be apolitical:

The Kennedys, I'm sure you are aware of their history and why they match your description of Americans.

The Bushes, George was accepted to Yale because he was a legacy, and graduated on because he was a legacy. He did not work hard to get where he did, just as you would say about the Kennedys.

The people at the top, the authoritarians, are STUPID, SLOVENLY, LAZY, GLUTONOUS, and IMMORAL to rule over us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

HST: Ok, why don't you supply a definition.

Learn to back-quote, stupid. It isn't that hard.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

Read more: Benito Mussolini Quotes - BrainyQuote

No doubt you will argue - you are a dumbass after all, but must of us view Mussolini as authoritative on the subject of Fascism.

HST: derp. And so is believing that only business should be represented by government.

I know of no group that holds such a stance.

Give me one instance were the tea party is against this.

Give me one instance where the democratic party is against raping 3 year old boys?

See, when you make a claim (I am NOT claiming this of the democrats, BTW) YOU have to prove your claim. I have no need to prove your claim false.

Never said they did. Reading comprehension is important.

You claimed (ignorantly) that the Tea Parties are fascist. I've presented overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Untrue, just like everything else in your post.

What the fuck?

Are you on drugs?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And Marauder, you stupid fuck, I have listed evidence, several times.

No, you have not - you lying fucking troll.

The tea party is funded by extremely wealthy people,

Even if true, it has nothing to do with fascism.

the most prominent financial supporter of their movement controls a media outlet that makes their values appear as truth while claiming to be "fair and balanced" (Fact: Murdoch is number one contributor to the Tea Party)

Provide a citation backing this up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am a libertarian.

No you're not, you're a lying douchebag.

 

[Anachronism]

I would argue that American's are lazy because of the "Advertising Lullaby" (George Carlin). We have become obsessed with obtaining material goods, over taking pride in our work. This is a result of business. The motivation to succeed in America, and I am generalizing, is to buy a better TV, etc. Goods here are made cheap, brake quickly, and sold expensively to maximize profit, i.e. planed and perceived obsolescence.

All true, to some degree or another. That's also one of the things we need to change in our society... this idea of a disposable society. One of the ways to change that would be to return to a CASH society; to do away with credit cards and the lack of responsibility that they tend to engender in society. The other way is to return to an Isolationist society where those cheap foreign products are no longer available in the marketplace.

Citizens are lazy because our dominant class determines value by meaningless wealth assets. Advertising in America perpetuates the belief that material represents value instead of determination.

I need to elaborate, I am not a marxist. I believe if you do a more difficult job you should be paid more; Mopping floors is vastly less difficult than performing surgery, that's why janitors make less than doctors.

True again. Which is why we need to return to a morals and values based society rather than a wealth based one. The doctor in your example has a higher moral value to society than the janitor as well as his financial value. It takes a person of generally better character to undertake the medical profession than the janitorial one (not to say that janitors can't have high morals and values) as the necessity to make split-second life or death decisions is much higher in the medical field, as is the potential to do serious harm. Only when we are willing and able to look at the candidates for a job and say... "You're better qualified, but he has the better character so we're hiring HIM." will this sort of thing start to change.

If Americans are lazy [it's] because of the values of the authoritarians you support.

I'm not quite sure how you're seeing that. Could you explain that a little more. thanks.

The founding fathers stated in the Constitution that Americans had the right to alter government if it becomes tyrannical; an excessive power of authority. With respect to individual rights, means that one group does not get to dominate power in America.

You say this is naive, I say when individuals have agency in in government society becomes stronger. Different factions are allowed to represent their interest, and are able to argue their position. When "the facts are in", as they say, informed decisions can be made because whatever the issue is, its effects on all groups can be considered.

No, I'm not saying that's naive. What I'm saying is naive is their idea that morality and values would remain the cornerstones of society and the government without it being specifically required in the founding documents. They looked at the best in people when they should have been looking at the worst; because that is the common denominator that will always come to the forefront in any situation.

Morals and values do exist in America, its just that conservatives believe every citizen should adhere to their ideology. We should all be Christian, kiss the feet of our corporate masters even though they want us to pay for their mistakes, and support ANY military action by the US.

I would suggest that you have a very narrow vision of Conservatism. I'm a Pagan (grew up Christian); I have no use for government subsidies of ANY industry or business, and was absolutely LIVID when the former POTUS decided to bail out the banks. Oh, and I support our troops overseas (including my cousin) while still believing we shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm just not going to abuse the troops for following orders like my father was abused when he returned from Vietnam.

However, you are right that Conservatives do believe that there is a single ideology and believe system that this country is supposed to run on. It's not of our choosing.... it's the one the Founders built this country on for the most part.

My morals and values are determined by the Constitution and my family and friends. I do not subscribe to the belief their is ONE correct way to view the world, neither does my family and constitution. History has proved this because different cultures have existed. You say you want authoritarianism to straighten America out, that is untrue, you want ultimate authoritarianism, you just don't want people to know they are living under an authoritarian.

I agree there is more than one way to view the world. There is the American Way and there are all the other ways. What I want is the American Way to be the only acceptable way here in the United States. People would be more than welcome to leave the country if they didn't agree with it.

Different cultures have existed over time. However when you look at the truly successful cultures, nations, religions, and philosophies over time you find that they all have a lot in common. Those commonalities are what I have termed "Universal Morality" and they're the basis for true Conservatism so far as I'm concerned.

I've never tried to hide that I'm an Authoritarian, and that is my prefered style of government.

The most lazy, stupid and gluttonous are the people with the most agency in government and society.
To be apolitical:

The people at the top, the authoritarians, are [too] STUPID, SLOVENLY, LAZY, GLUTONOUS, and IMMORAL to rule over us.

The people at the top have become simply a reflection of the people below them. That was never the intent of the Founders. Their intent was to send the best and brightest from among the population to serve for limited periods of time, constantly refreshing with new ideas while maintaining the solid foundation of morals and values. We now send anyone with enough money and charisma to win an election. That's not what was intended at all.

 

[hst_patriot]

HST: Ok, why don't you supply a definition.

Learn to back-quote, stupid. It isn't that hard.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

Yes, this is my definition of fascism. I am arguing that right wingers are attempting to merge state and corporate powers, by removing the individual agency in government. When you have a party that supports making unions illegal, and attempts to remove images hard working lower class people from the American narrative.

An example, Maine governor, Paul LePage, remove a mural of hardworking lower class members of society. The state, in this instance Maine, is determining that the image of a hard working labor class, one with power to influence corporatists for right, does not hold agency in the state. Corporate power is exhibited because removing the image of unions, and preaching its all about business, allows corporatism to dominate the political scene.

No doubt you will argue - you are a dumbass after all, but must of us view Mussolini as authoritative on the subject of Fascism.

I assume by "must of us", you mean most of us. I would agree Mussolini as an authority on fascism. You are retarded plain and simple if you fail to see that removing collective bargaining rights of a particular class of people is fascist.

HST: derp. And so is believing that only business should be represented by government.

I know of no group that holds such a stance.

The Tea Party believes this. They do not want a specific class of people to be able to participate in government, i.e. the working poor, because if workers demand higher wages because they cannot afford the essentials; food, shelter, clothing, those at the top of the hierarchy make less money. Right wingers cast the working poor as a terrible monster, bent on destroying America, when in reality the working poor are driven further in to debt because they cannot afford, monetarily, to live in the US.

The notion that its socialist for workers to desire enough reward for their labor to live a basic life is false. Socialism would gives the government full control of production, democracy allows workers to say, "I'm not being treated fairly", which can then be evaluated by congress, with respect to either state or federal government, and this is synonymous with American concepts of liberty.

Quote: "Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions."
If the right opposes a lesser class being active politically, they are opposed to liberty. They are not letting human beings govern themselves, but corporatism to govern human beings, there is no free will.

Give me one instance where the democratic party is against raping 3 year old boys?
See, when you make a claim (I am NOT claiming this of the democrats, BTW) YOU have to prove your claim. I have no need to prove your claim false.

You claimed (ignorantly) that the Tea Parties are fascist. I've presented overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

No you haven't. I said give me an example where the tea party supports individual rights. Your example was: "Give me one instance where the democratic party is against raping 3 year old boys?"
That is not an example, and is irrelevant to the debate. We are not discussing democrats, we are discussing fascism. Your example does not illustrate the tea party being un-fascist, it actually makes you look like a fascist. You do not say the tea party is not fascist because... or yes the tea party is fascist/authoritarian, but thats ok because...

What your example does illustrate, is you being unable to create intelligent thought or debate. You may resubmit an example of the tea party supporting liberty, or argue why fascism is ok. Your example makes an earthworm appear to have superior debating skill.

Untrue, just like everything else in your post.

What the fuck?

I am saying that you are fucking dumb, and that your are not accurate towards this discussion.

Are you on drugs?

Responsible drug use is not wrong. Those who posses liberty may do as they please, but must accept the consequences. Drug abuse and a addiction, similar to alcohol, is a personal issue that is not up to a nation to dictate what should be done with these people, but their families. Furthermore, and I am making an assumption you may correct me if necessary, I'm sure you drink alcohol, at least on occasion.
What is the difference between drinking a few beers at a family reunion, for example, and smoking a joint in the same context?

Claiming its ok to think sober, or drunk, but not think under conditions of thought, is essential fascist because it dictates how individuals can perceive reality. No I am not on drugs, nor was I last night, except for caffeine. You make the assumption that only high people are against your politics. You are stupid.

 

[hst_patriot]

And Marauder, you stupid fuck, I have listed evidence, several times.
No, you have not - you lying fucking troll.

Yes I have, but you and Marauder don't understand the concept of evidence, logic or reason. As far as I can tell from this thread, you two believe News Corp. is the lone provider of evidence, logic, and reason. Do you do anything other than pile one groups propaganda in your brain, and accept their logic as truth? If so that is sad, but explains why you appear so retarded.

The tea party is funded by extremely wealthy people,
Even if true, it has nothing to do with fascism.

quote]the most prominent financial supporter of their movement controls a media outlet that makes their values appear as truth while claiming to be "fair and balanced" (Fact: Murdoch is number one contributor to the Tea Party)

Provide a citation backing this up.[/QUOTE]


It does when the network under discussion, News Corp., does not make the public aware of its political allies. Keith Olbermann was suspended for making campaign contributions, which demonstrates his alignment with the left, and his bias is identified. Fox would never attack one of their anchors for donating to a conservative.

Fox News hides their bias. They never mention that Murdoch, who owns News Corp., contributes to the right. His network glorifies the right without attempting to explain why they are in the right, viewers are supposed to take it as fact.

Furthermore, Sean Hannity donates more to conservative organizations than Olbermann does to liberal organizations. This is not to suggest one is better than the other, they are the same stink from different shits. However, it demonstrates Fox's political bias.

Keith Olbermann suspended for making political donations - Chicago Sun-Times

The article below feature Fox News' VP admitting he knowingly lied about Obama being a socialist. If he admits to lying, in order to force views to agree with Fox, that is fascist.

Fox News Veep Admits Lying About Obama 'Socialist' Charge

If News Corp fails to identify themselves as right wing, and claims to be "fair and balanced", they are saying we are representing each argument equally. Furthermore, a network is NOT fair and balanced if their VP admits to knowingly publishing false claims. This is forcing people to believe you are right does not provide alternate views to become balanced, and that is called fascism you fucking asshole.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, this is my definition of fascism. I am arguing that right wingers are attempting to merge state and corporate powers, by removing the individual agency in government.

Then you are simply stupid.

When you have a party that supports making unions illegal,

No one supports that, you're just a fucking liar.

You are retarded plain and simple if you fail to see that removing collective bargaining rights of a particular class of people is fascist.

From government employees, stupid fuck. No one has said a word against private industry workers having unions - you're just a shameless fucking liar.

The Tea Party believes this.

You're a fucking liar.

As such, you're not worth bothering with.

 

[hst_patriot]

Anachronism, The value of material goods is held by the upper tear of our hierarchy, think about the lavish spending of the most wealthy. Their values determine ours because we are in their system. I do not define this as wrong. What I am arguing is that the upper tear is not fulfilling their obligation to care for our citizens. In capitalism industry is the structure that propels the economy, opposed to socialism which is the government. If the economy is bad business is responsible, to boost it. History proves, look up history of workers rights and corporate abuse on google, that left to their own design business will not represent individual rights.

I feel that individual rights allow a more successful society, it boosts competition, which if you know anything about capitalism leads to a good economy. We cannot have a strong economy without individual right.

 

[Anachronism]

Anachronism, The value of material goods is held by the upper [tier] of our hierarchy, think about the lavish spending of the most wealthy. Their values determine ours because we are in their system. I do not define this as wrong. What I am arguing is that the upper [tier] is not fulfilling their obligation to care for our citizens. In capitalism industry is the structure that propels the economy, opposed to socialism which is the government. If the economy is bad business is responsible, to boost it. History proves, look up history of workers rights and corporate abuse on google, that left to their own design business will not represent individual rights.

I feel that individual rights allow a more successful society, it boosts competition, which if you know anything about capitalism leads to a good economy. We cannot have a strong economy without individual right.

Ok. Why should a corporation pay an employee more than it has to? Why should they provide benefits that they don't have to? I'm not against Unions (hell, I'm in one, and a departmental Steward), but there are many cases where Unions are not appropriate and/or they demand much more than is reasonable from the company.

Personally, I believe that the means to correct the issues you're talking about is a simple one.... Isolationism. Tell these companies that they're either AMERICAN companies or they're Foreign companies. American companies are incorporated, headquartered, and run out of the United States. Their product is made in the US by US Citizens and sold to US Citizens. If they produce more than the American market needs, great. They can export it to any country that is willing to take it. However if there is ever a shortage they must meet US market demand before ANY units are sent overseas.

As for the "responsibility" of the wealthy to provide for others.... I tend to disagree. It is no more the "responsibility" of someone making $6 Million a year to provide food, shelter, clothing, etc... for someone who is a drug user, a high school dropout, etc... than it is for me, making $63K to do so. Those people have made their choices in life and are dealing with the consequences of such in many cases.

Like me, the wealthy should be picking and choosing their opportunities to do charitable things. I give to organizations that require those who they help to be helping themselves (getting off drugs, finding a job, etc...). That means the donations are few and far between coming from me. Instead I prefer to help my immediate family, friends, and associates in their times of need so they don't have to go to the government for assistance because I already know that they're worthy of my help.

 

[Old Rocks]

the book sucked

ayn rand sucked

you suck

Heresy, heresy!!!!

 

[lehr]

There are so many because the Tea Party IS fascist. Do a little research instead of blindly following what some people say. You will find that your party is fascist. I am from a conservative libertarian family, raised to be conservative. However, I was not raised to blindly follow the words of TV personalities. I dare you to takes some time and read three pages of the documents tea party supporters use to convey their message, then examine the party's political actions, and the end result is that the Tea Party does not support liberty, freedom, and democracy, but fascism instead.

" hell to pay " by barb olson

" bill klinton had a nanny listed as a security guard " p. 136 = we even had to pay for his sex !

" hillarys prof at yale was called (tommy the commie) tom emerson " p. 54

" hillary protested everything from lack of tampons in womans rooms to the viet-nam war " p. 54

" hillary at yale - sandals - stringy hair - coke bottle glasses and black arm band for kent state " mp. 54

" hillary joining the marines in 1975 was a joke among her friends " p. 7 - it was their way of celebrating communist victory in viet-nam that year

" hillary talkied about adopting a baby just to soften her healthcare image " p. 2 = it worked = amerikans love to be fooled by communists !

" hillary knew bill was a serial sexual predator " p. 212

" every school dist in arkansas was under hillarys thumb - because of her 57% of arkansas college freshmen had to take remedial classes " p. 229

" hillary used hyponosis to talk to mrs. roosevelt " p. 313 = now she is sec. of state - : (