Liberalism's Fatal Flaw

[PoliticalChic]

Someone could point out that, using this logic, 'political equality' leads just as easily to the point where the 'ambition of some people' means buying influence, with resultant inequality.

100%
I'm gonna get to that.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...a time when theft and lies were considered the greatest virtue and a way of life."

The Middle Ages.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fatal flaw in liberal ideology is that they think people should be owned as if they were some cattle or slaves. From that, pretty much all the other failures follow.

No need for long lists when it can all be explained so eloquently in one sentence. Inequality is just one convenient justification for the ownership. It is made especially ironic given the fact that these people do everything in their power to end up poor - in effect causing the problem. The irony..

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Translation: All of those things and then some more.

Credit is due to the cliched presentation of the boogeymans of the liberal regressive mythology. "The evil corporations" or in other words free people not willing to throw unlimited benefits at your way... never gets old.

Okay so you believe corporations and those who run them can do no wrong.

Where have we ever seen that, when government left businesses alone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Wrong. What has long been called the far left is becoming more and more mainstream as progress occurs.

The rising popularity has above all uncovered what massive failures the ideas are. Thus the more scientifically correct term "regressive" and "regression". The regressive people want to take us back to a time when theft and lies were considered the greatest virtue and a way of life. Why? Because that is the only environment where complete losers such as our own NYcarbineer can thrive.

If we end public education tomorrow, and no one gets an education unless they pay for it at market value,

how will that make the country better? How will that improve the future for poor kids?

 

[Norman]

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Translation: All of those things and then some more.

Credit is due to the cliched presentation of the boogeymans of the liberal regressive mythology. "The evil corporations" or in other words free people not willing to throw unlimited benefits at your way... never gets old.

Okay so you believe corporations and those who run them can do no wrong.

Where have we ever seen that, when government left businesses alone?

Exactly where did I say that?

In general though, they are way, way more moral than the people in government. Heck, at least no corporation relies on theft as its primary source of income!

There are some bad apples though, and guess what, I can simply not associate with them.

Whenever government leaves the economy alone, massive never before seen growth occurs. It's almost like a law of nature. Humanity just doesn't thrive on theft and oppression. I am sorry if you don't ACCEPT this fact.

It seems you are the one who thinks government can do no wrong. When leeching of the government, not exactly a surprising view.

 

[Contumacious]

The fatal flaw in liberal ideology is that they think people should be owned as if they were some cattle or slaves. From that, pretty much all the other failures follow.

No need for long lists when it can all be explained so eloquently in one sentence. Inequality is just one convenient justification for the ownership. It is made especially ironic given the fact that these people do everything in their power to end up poor - in effect causing the problem. The irony..

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line as when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

 

[Mac1958]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

 

[Norman]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republicans / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fatal flaw in liberal ideology is that they think people should be owned as if they were some cattle or slaves. From that, pretty much all the other failures follow.

No need for long lists when it can all be explained so eloquently in one sentence. Inequality is just one convenient justification for the ownership. It is made especially ironic given the fact that these people do everything in their power to end up poor - in effect causing the problem. The irony..

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

 

[Norman]

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme. Still, if you fail forking over about 40 % of your earned income the government will place you firmly behind bars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

Obviously I'm biased here, but the only repulsive antics I have seen are the moonbats who riot, shit all over and destroy things.

I think your perception is off. Most people are sick of hoods and vandals getting their way because they're willing to destroy other people's shit. The world's richest professional clown is a moonbat, and people who are normally well informed ignore everything negative about him because he says he is going to subjugate and repress their enemies.

Leftists are our enemies. They are not "our countrymen" who just have different ideas about economics and the role of government. These are drones who hate this country. These are weapons grade stupid parrots who mindlessly promote regressive and destructive philosophies. They haven't become stronger, they have become louder and more violent, but they are losing.

As much as I don't like Dump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is winning in spite of being a liberal piece of shit, is because he is using rhetoric that inspires people who really want to fight these assholes.

The only reason there are so many regressive parasites running around is because good guys wait for green lights. Good guys don't want to go to hell.

The green light is on a timer and it's ticking.

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

Yeah, government's role is in such a huge decline, better watch out for those evil republican / corporations or whatever else nonsense you believe in:

Could it be that the correct explanation is that the regressive parasites here have bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to this issue. The gov pays them by stealing money from others and they vote for the gov. Absolutely immoral individuals.

We of course know the results of this experiment - massively declined economy.

Well, let's study that overspending problem, starting with this:

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

Wrong. Slavery existed for the lack of a government law against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

Dude it was a government law. I believe it would be enough to repeal that law...For example, this law: Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the lack of IQ.

I agree with reductions in military spending. But it's absolutely dishonest to compare the defense budgets in absolute amounts, especially with countries that have mandatory military service. This is laughably stupid. Additionally, it's a tip of the iceberg anyway, so I don't understand your need to even bring it up. Other than as an attempt to score some stupid regressive points, of course.

Really? So if slavery had been kept legal, we'd be fine? and beating the slaves for not working hard enough? Bring that back too?

What about child labor? What about pollution? What about dangerous workplace conditions?

 

[Norman]

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

Dude it was a government law. I believe it would be enough to repeal that law...For example, this law: Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the lack of IQ.

I agree with reductions in military spending. But it's absolutely dishonest to compare the defense budgets in absolute amounts, especially with countries that have mandatory military service. This is laughably stupid. Additionally, it's a tip of the iceberg anyway, so I don't understand your need to even bring it up. Other than as an attempt to score some stupid regressive points, of course.

Really? So if slavery had been kept legal, we'd be fine? and beating the slaves for not working hard enough? Bring that back too?

What about child labor? What about pollution? What about dangerous workplace conditions?

Could you stop straw-manning. I never said any of those things. Yes, obviously slavery should be illegal (even if liberal regressives totally are for owning the earning's of other people). I was just pointing out that slavery was in fact made possible by a law.

No need to bring more liberal mythology nonsense into this. No one would have their kids working today, with or without laws. Don't be an idiot and try taking credit for something you or your regressive ideology played absolutely no part in. Dangerous workplace conditions are a choice and exist to this day. Regardless of what your regressive idols tell you. You can't legislate reality out of existence.

 

[Pete7469]

But -- and this is not a prediction, I'm horrible at political predictions - his behavior is only appealing to a limited amount of the electorate, as evidenced by his high disapproval ratings. Look at the people he is attracting, such as the white supremecist types. Regardless of whether it's his intent or desire to attract them, he has. Well, now he's attached to them in the public eye.

But it's not just Trump. It's conservative talk radio, it's the hardcore Right that has put so much effort into shutting down government, it's the conservatives who talk about getting rid of program after program, department after department, it's the Republicans who want to shut down the ACA and literally take health coverage away from millions, it's the right wingers who loudly call Americans freeloaders and the 47%, it's the conservatives who talk about the evils of Medicare and Social Security, on and on and on. I'm talking about that even more than Trump.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm just saying that this behavior has made things easier for the hardcore Left to make their case.

Sure, I could be wrong, but I'm talking about messaging more than message. It's just not very attractive right now, and hasn't been for a while.
.

I am far from a Dump supporter. I do think he will lose against Hitlery in the general, and I suspect it is deliberate. It just doesn't add up that a billionaire who gave criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths campaign cash, assasinated the character of Ted Cruz and funded anti-tea party endeavors is all of a sudden a conservative and speaks for everyone who opposes the globalist regressive collectivists.

He doesn't, but unfortunately the truth is sometimes harder to sell, and if you aren't interested in selling it you don't put it on the front page.


IMO conservative talk radio and the simple concept of the individual interest being prioritized over that of the state and the federal being subservient to the state is gaining popularity. It's a tough contest convincing people their better interest is self reliance than dependence on government. That means they have to make an effort. A whole metric shit ton of government boondoggles need to be undone and the only guy in my life who comes close to suggesting that is Ted Cruz , yet he is vilified for shutting down the government but no one noticed unless they tried to sight see at some DC war memorials.

The programs that keep people dependent on government are wrong. Government can provide a safety net, although that is a dangerous in itself because it always fails someone and the politically easy "solution" is to turn it into a hammock.

The biggest problem conservatives face is marketing. It's hard to sell reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

Dude it was a government law. I believe it would be enough to repeal that law...For example, this law: Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the lack of IQ.

I agree with reductions in military spending. But it's absolutely dishonest to compare the defense budgets in absolute amounts, especially with countries that have mandatory military service. This is laughably stupid. Additionally, it's a tip of the iceberg anyway, so I don't understand your need to even bring it up. Other than as an attempt to score some stupid regressive points, of course.

Really? So if slavery had been kept legal, we'd be fine? and beating the slaves for not working hard enough? Bring that back too?

What about child labor? What about pollution? What about dangerous workplace conditions?

Could you stop straw-manning. I never said any of those things. Yes, obviously slavery should be illegal (even if liberal regressives totally are for owning the earning's of other people). I was just pointing out that slavery was in fact made possible by a law.

No need to bring more liberal mythology nonsense into this. No one would have their kids working today, with or without laws. Don't be an idiot and try taking credit for something you or your regressive ideology played absolutely no part in. Dangerous workplace conditions are a choice and exist to this day. Regardless of what your regressive idols tell you. You can't legislate reality out of existence.

Okay so finally you agree that government is necessary to rein in business.

Now that we've established I'm right about that, and you were originally wrong, it's just a debate over how much...

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Who is responsible for anyone's material wealth....in a nation built on liberty?


In an enlightening essay in MarketWatch, we find proof of the above, "Protecting people’s equal rights invariably leads to differences in economic condition,..."

"Neal Gabler did in the May issue of the Atlantic, where he revealed that he’s one of the 47% of Americans [in Obama's economy] whocouldn’t come up with $400 in an emergency.

Gabler has written acclaimed biographies of Walt Disney and Walter Winchell (the model for the smarmy gossip columnist played by Burt Lancaster in the classic movie, “Sweet Smell of Success”). “An Empire of Their Own,” about the pioneering producers of Hollywood, is in my opinion one of the best books ever written about the American Jewish experience.

Unfortunately, Gabler was, as he freely admits, “a financial illiterate, or worse — an ignoramus.”

“I don’t ask for or expect any sympathy,” he writes. “I am responsible for my quagmire — no one else.”



His situation is the product of some bad luck and many poor choices.

1. He chose to be a writer, not the most stable profession.

2. He chose to write books, which don’t produce income for years.

3. He chose to live in high-cost New York City.

4. He chose to have two children, whom he sent to private school early on and then to Stanford and Emory for college.

5. His wife quit her job as a film executive to spend more time with the kids when they moved to eastern Long Island." We’re going broke chasing the American Dream




That's right....not government.....only the individual's work ethic, sense of responsibility, and life choices are responsible for one's wealth.....or lack of same.

That is Liberalism's fatal flaw.
And every other collectivist political philosophy.

 

[Contumacious]

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

When you get up the 'L's in your homeschool reading course, you'll find out you are wrong.

Excuse moi dingleberry


Do you advocate that the GOVERNMENT

1- feed you?
2- clothe you?
3- insure you?
4- pay for your education?
5- quench your thirst
6- manage and finance a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Yes, you said

There is no such thing as "liberalism" - refer to it by its proper nomenclature

left wing fascism/socialism

.

NO.

I advocate that government protect the people from private business, industry, capitalism, and all of the abuses that those people are capable of inflicting in the name of profit.

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Bullshit again.

Slavery was a STATE SANCTIONED COERCION

I have never stated that all private businesses are honest.. But slavery was a formed of corporatism. Slaves were not allowed to complain to the state for relief.


"Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, canconstitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

 

[Norman]

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

Dude it was a government law. I believe it would be enough to repeal that law...For example, this law: Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the lack of IQ.

I agree with reductions in military spending. But it's absolutely dishonest to compare the defense budgets in absolute amounts, especially with countries that have mandatory military service. This is laughably stupid. Additionally, it's a tip of the iceberg anyway, so I don't understand your need to even bring it up. Other than as an attempt to score some stupid regressive points, of course.

Really? So if slavery had been kept legal, we'd be fine? and beating the slaves for not working hard enough? Bring that back too?

What about child labor? What about pollution? What about dangerous workplace conditions?

Could you stop straw-manning. I never said any of those things. Yes, obviously slavery should be illegal (even if liberal regressives totally are for owning the earning's of other people). I was just pointing out that slavery was in fact made possible by a law.

No need to bring more liberal mythology nonsense into this. No one would have their kids working today, with or without laws. Don't be an idiot and try taking credit for something you or your regressive ideology played absolutely no part in. Dangerous workplace conditions are a choice and exist to this day. Regardless of what your regressive idols tell you. You can't legislate reality out of existence.

Okay so finally you agree that government is necessary to rein in business.

Now that we've established I'm right about that, and you were originally wrong, it's just a debate over how much...

WTF? Where did you pull that from? Ah, whatever, there is no talking logic or reading comprehension into you.

You are an idiot liberal who is just waiting for that "gotcha" moment, when someone infinitely smarter than you just might have said something not quite correct. That's when you strike, as if that contributed to anything, even though you have not had a single moment of mental clarity in all your life. It's pathetic.