Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

[daveman]

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

Actually, you'll be thrown under the bus as soon as your useful idiocy is no longer useful.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

You could, but it would be wrong.

The left believes in hierarchy. They're the only ones fighting the class war, in case you didn't notice. They're the ones demanding that the upper class be punished for being successful, and that they pay for the left's bad choices.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Oh...so YOU'RE keeping you down.

Your position in life is the direct result of the choices you made. No one owes you anything.

So why are you bitching about those who made a success out of their lives?

Oh, yes...greed and envy.

So, how's your impotent bitching on the internet working out for you?

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Horseshit. Liberals pigeonhole people based on skin color, based on economic circumstance...liberals most definitely do NOT assume a natural equality of humans.

Conservatives do. We believe everyone can succeed without one group being given special privilege due to their skin color.

But you just keep lying to yourself.

"Anger is as a stone cast into a wasp's nest"
Unknown

Keep talking there daveman, you are unwittingly burying yourself...

It was liberals fighting conservatives in this country that gained equal rights based on skin color. And it is conservatives today who STILL want to deny equal rights because of skin color, sexual orientation, age, gender, disability and status.

My position in life is the direct result of the choices I made. But I DIDN'T say 'No one owes me anything'...YOU DID.

I have no problem with those who made a success out of their lives, I've done it myself. But your 'greed and envy' comment tells me that YOUR priorities are mammon and status.
They're not mine. I know what my priorities are and they have guided my choices throughout my life.

Conservatism today has become Ayn Rand social Darwinism, the modern day Pharisees.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.

You make it so very easy for anyone with an education to shred your prattle....

Although a way-Left Liberal, I found areas of agreement with Glenn Greenwald, in his book “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.”

He wrote:

The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.


You see, those on the Left, but with integrity, speak directly to how very, very....what is the word.....oh, yes...how 'stoooooopid' your views are.



But...I do so very much appreciate your input, as it makes me appear brilliant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

I would have to respect someone's opinion in order to find it demeaning.

Wow....I'm cut to the quick by that wicked clever retort!!!


Pardon.....I...I...must...go to my room to compose myself......

 

[Rshermr]

PC says:

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Then, Daveman says:

The Following User Says Thank You to PoliticalChic For This Useful Post:
daveman (Today)

So, a con tool agrees with a con tool. Two such brilliant minds meld together for this absolutely vacuous thought. damn, what a pair. And what a waste of space.

 

[Bfgrn]

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.

You make it so very easy for anyone with an education to shred your prattle....

Although a way-Left Liberal, I found areas of agreement with Glenn Greenwald, in his book “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.”

He wrote:

The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.


You see, those on the Left, but with integrity, speak directly to how very, very....what is the word.....oh, yes...how 'stoooooopid' your views are.



But...I do so very much appreciate your input, as it makes me appear brilliant.

Your portrayal of Glenn Greenwald as a 'a way-Left Liberal' shows that you don't really respect the man. He calls himself an independent. You merely found some 'ammunition' for your dogmatism and doctrinaire.

I don't have a problem with Greenwald's premise, I have a problem with your definition of failure, Mitt Romney's definition of failure and you far right social Darwinist's definition of failure.

Let's take a look at who Mitt Romney's 47%ers really are, and then let me know which ones you want to cut loose to fend for themselves...

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC says:

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Then, Daveman says:

The Following User Says Thank You to PoliticalChic For This Useful Post:
daveman (Today)

So, a con tool agrees with a con tool. Two such brilliant minds meld together for this absolutely vacuous thought. damn, what a pair. And what a waste of space.

…mildly amusing but utterly inconsequential..

OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts!

 

[Douger]

Kanta hab nunna that thar sohshulizzm.
It's much better to steal all of your money and give it to other countries that your corporate masters have heavy investments in while sending your ignorant military meatheads to cover their asses and see that their abuses continue, unchallenged.
It's an Empire thang. Your education is at such a low level you could never understand.
Here are potential parents of more meatheads. Get ridda that thar sax edjikation so they can keep spitting them out.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw]Redneck lady disses Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.

You make it so very easy for anyone with an education to shred your prattle....

Although a way-Left Liberal, I found areas of agreement with Glenn Greenwald, in his book “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.”

He wrote:

The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.


You see, those on the Left, but with integrity, speak directly to how very, very....what is the word.....oh, yes...how 'stoooooopid' your views are.



But...I do so very much appreciate your input, as it makes me appear brilliant.

Your portrayal of Glenn Greenwald as a 'a way-Left Liberal' shows that you don't really respect the man. He calls himself an independent. You merely found some 'ammunition' for your dogmatism and doctrinaire.

I don't have a problem with Greenwald's premise, I have a problem with your definition of failure, Mitt Romney's definition of failure and you far right social Darwinist's definition of failure.

Let's take a look at who Mitt Romney's 47%ers really are, and then let me know which ones you want to cut loose to fend for themselves...

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

1. "Your portrayal of Glenn Greenwald as a 'a way-Left Liberal' shows that you don't really respect the man. He calls himself an independent. You merely found some 'ammunition' for your dogmatism and doctrinaire."

You're a fool...but, heck....you're my fool!
And so very easy!

"Liberal commentators Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer are leading the contrarian charge, claiming that mayors opposed to the construction of new Chick-Fil-A outlets are setting a “dangerous” precedent for violating the First Amendment..."
Liberal Defenders of Chick-Fil-A Unwittingly Defend Corporate Personhood [Updated] | The Nation


2. "I don't have a problem with Greenwald's premise, ...."

Looky, looky.....look who's beating a hasty retreat!
Good boy.....



3. "...I have a problem with your definition of failure,..."
I don't believe I've given such.

Back on those mushrooms again?




4."Who are the 47%?"

So.....you wanna change the subject?

I guess that means I won another one?


Do you realize that you've become the Washington Generals to my Harlem Globetrotters???

 

[daveman]

"Anger is as a stone cast into a wasp's nest"
Unknown

Keep talking there daveman, you are unwittingly burying yourself...

I'm sure that fantasy comforts you.

It was liberals fighting conservatives in this country that gained equal rights based on skin color. And it is conservatives today who STILL want to deny equal rights because of skin color, sexual orientation, age, gender, disability and status.

Big fat hairy lies. Not at all surprising that you believe them.

My position in life is the direct result of the choices I made. But I DIDN'T say 'No one owes me anything'...YOU DID.

You disagree with it? Who owes you something? And why?

I have no problem with those who made a success out of their lives, I've done it myself. But your 'greed and envy' comment tells me that YOUR priorities are mammon and status.

Look, it's really not my fault that you don't recognize what motivates you. It's clear as a bell.

They're not mine. I know what my priorities are and they have guided my choices throughout my life.

So why do you keep wanting to punish those wealthier than you?

Conservatism today has become Ayn Rand social Darwinism, the modern day Pharisees.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

Yeah. Your bigotry against and stereotypes of conservatives may tell you these verses are appropriately aimed at me, but they're not.

 

[daveman]

PC says:

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Then, Daveman says:

The Following User Says Thank You to PoliticalChic For This Useful Post:
daveman (Today)

So, a con tool agrees with a con tool. Two such brilliant minds meld together for this absolutely vacuous thought. damn, what a pair. And what a waste of space.

When you've ever done anything to merit your asinine level of arrogance, let me know.

 

[NoNukes]

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

I would have to respect someone's opinion in order to find it demeaning.

Wow....I'm cut to the quick by that wicked clever retort!!!


Pardon.....I...I...must...go to my room to compose myself......

Yeah, my words get you moist in the knickers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would have to respect someone's opinion in order to find it demeaning.

Wow....I'm cut to the quick by that wicked clever retort!!!


Pardon.....I...I...must...go to my room to compose myself......

Yeah, my words get you moist in the knickers.

As Freud pointed out, it is the purpose of repose to provide wish fulfillment.


Go take a nap.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are two groups of people who vote Republican, millionaires and suckers.

PC & friends...

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

If you wrote a 12,500 word essay your brain would implode from the resultant vacuum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

You've got a point there, fruity.....

....it's a weakness I haven't been able to mitigate: I have little patience for stupidity....



But, thanks so much for providing 'debate prep' in that regard.

I pretend I am talking to children, it helps me be patient with the derpier posters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

I consider propaganda and education to be different. Spending money posting my opinion might be 'education' to me, but you may differ, of course, you usually agree with me.

I think you need to look up the definition of propaganda. All this guy is doing is explaining why he is voting republican, and asking others to do the same thing. You could always step in an point out which facts he got wrong in order to refute his argument.

Except he didn't get a single fact wrong, did he?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

I would have to respect someone's opinion in order to find it demeaning.

You would first have to respect yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

You could, but it would be wrong.

The left believes in hierarchy. They're the only ones fighting the class war, in case you didn't notice. They're the ones demanding that the upper class be punished for being successful, and that they pay for the left's bad choices.

Oh...so YOU'RE keeping you down.

Your position in life is the direct result of the choices you made. No one owes you anything.

So why are you bitching about those who made a success out of their lives?

Oh, yes...greed and envy.

So, how's your impotent bitching on the internet working out for you?

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Horseshit. Liberals pigeonhole people based on skin color, based on economic circumstance...liberals most definitely do NOT assume a natural equality of humans.

Conservatives do. We believe everyone can succeed without one group being given special privilege due to their skin color.

But you just keep lying to yourself.

"Anger is as a stone cast into a wasp's nest"
Unknown

Keep talking there daveman, you are unwittingly burying yourself...

It was liberals fighting conservatives in this country that gained equal rights based on skin color. And it is conservatives today who STILL want to deny equal rights because of skin color, sexual orientation, age, gender, disability and status.

My position in life is the direct result of the choices I made. But I DIDN'T say 'No one owes me anything'...YOU DID.

I have no problem with those who made a success out of their lives, I've done it myself. But your 'greed and envy' comment tells me that YOUR priorities are mammon and status.
They're not mine. I know what my priorities are and they have guided my choices throughout my life.

Conservatism today has become Ayn Rand social Darwinism, the modern day Pharisees.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

Have you ever read Ayn Rand? Other than your paean to collectivism, you sound a lot like most of her heroes, they all despised the wealthy people who ruled over society. Maybe you have more in common with her than you think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.

You make it so very easy for anyone with an education to shred your prattle....

Although a way-Left Liberal, I found areas of agreement with Glenn Greenwald, in his book “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.”

He wrote:

The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.


You see, those on the Left, but with integrity, speak directly to how very, very....what is the word.....oh, yes...how 'stoooooopid' your views are.



But...I do so very much appreciate your input, as it makes me appear brilliant.

Don't take this wrong, but Bfgrn make rdean appear brilliant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your portrayal of Glenn Greenwald as a 'a way-Left Liberal' shows that you don't really respect the man. He calls himself an independent. You merely found some 'ammunition' for your dogmatism and doctrinaire.

This shows how incredibly stupid you are, it is possible to be far left, or far right, and still be independent. All it takes to be independent is not to be affiliated with a political party.

I don't have a problem with Greenwald's premise, I have a problem with your definition of failure, Mitt Romney's definition of failure and you far right social Darwinist's definition of failure.

You prefer the Bush/Obama definition of failure, the one that says that the government needs to save the rich people and throw the poor people away?

Gotta admit, I didn't see that one coming.

Let's take a look at who Mitt Romney's 47%ers really are, and then let me know which ones you want to cut loose to fend for themselves...

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is interesting that you keep associating the 47% with their class, while Romney, most likely, saw them as being the ones that vote Democratic no matter what. Is that because you think like an asshole, or is it because you are a lying sack of shit?