The American Left should stop and smell the roses

[bripat9643]

[

Yes, Comrade, it's the Bourgeois oppressing the Proletariat. In the end, if you get your way, you will go the route of all the communist tools before you, into bondage. Because you wouldn't appreciate what you have. Stop and smell the roses, this is way, way better than what you are fighting for.

I'd be happy to go back to what we had under that Commie Eisenhower.

Strong unions, full employment, good pensions.

and governmetn services that worked because the rich paid their fair share.

You'd have to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age to achieve an economy that worked the same way as the one we had during the Eisenhower administration. Somehow I think people living in Japan and Germany might have a few objections to that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You'd have to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age to achieve an economy that worked the same way as the one we had during the Eisenhower administration. Somehow I think people living in Japan and Germany might have a few objections to that.

You mean to say that we didn't do it just by hard work and good old American gumption? That maybe the state of the world at the time had something to do with our economic success? Perish the thought.

 

[kaz]

[

Yes, Comrade, it's the Bourgeois oppressing the Proletariat. In the end, if you get your way, you will go the route of all the communist tools before you, into bondage. Because you wouldn't appreciate what you have. Stop and smell the roses, this is way, way better than what you are fighting for.

I'd be happy to go back to what we had under that Commie Eisenhower.

Strong unions, full employment, good pensions.

and governmetn services that worked because the rich paid their fair share.

So if one percent of taxpayers earning 20% of income and paying 40% of taxes and five percent of taxpayers paying 60% of taxes isn't their "fair share," what is, Comrade? Should they pay all the taxes? Would that even be enough to quench your greed?

 

[bripat9643]

You'd have to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age to achieve an economy that worked the same way as the one we had during the Eisenhower administration. Somehow I think people living in Japan and Germany might have a few objections to that.

You mean to say that we didn't do it just by hard work and good old American gumption? That maybe the state of the world at the time had something to do with our economic success? Perish the thought.

So what's your plan, to bomb the rest of the world into the stone age?

One thing is certain, the economy doesn't grow because tax rates are high. Only morons sucking on the government tit believe that theory.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You'd have to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age to achieve an economy that worked the same way as the one we had during the Eisenhower administration. Somehow I think people living in Japan and Germany might have a few objections to that.

You mean to say that we didn't do it just by hard work and good old American gumption? That maybe the state of the world at the time had something to do with our economic success? Perish the thought.

So what's your plan, to bomb the rest of the world into the stone age?

One thing is certain, the economy doesn't grow because tax rates are high. Only morons sucking on the government tit believe that theory.

The economy grows when the money flows. Rich people sitting on it does nothing for anyone but the rich, hence the current state of the American economy.

 

[Mac1958]

The economy grows when the money flows. Rich people sitting on it does nothing for anyone but the rich, hence the current state of the American economy.

"The rich" don't like sitting on their money. It's against their nature.

They will only do so when the climate incentivizes them to be careful.

Like when success and growth and profits are vilified. They're not dumb.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The economy grows when the money flows. Rich people sitting on it does nothing for anyone but the rich, hence the current state of the American economy.

"The rich" don't like sitting on their money. It's against their nature.

Oh, they're quite good at it actually. They are, in general, risk adverse. But it hardly matters, they stopped building anything but walls to keep the poor away decades ago. Do you know why Adam Smith was against the transfer of wealth? That's why.

 

[JFK_USA]

No behavior is exclusive to one "side", that's for sure.

But the Left does far more than name calling and accusations. They make it their responsibility to issue "consequences" - and this is not my word, it is theirs. They choose to punish, they do not have to do so.

We're obviously not going to agree, but I see a significant distinction. And I think what bothers me the most is the fact that, you wouldn't know it by looking at me, but there's a lot of old hippie in me, and I hate to see how the American Left has become the antithesis of what it used to be. And again, to quote Democrat and hottie Kirsten Powers:

How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.

.

Obviously you don't quite understand what tolerance is.

Tolerance is accepting others for who they are. Being intolerant means the exact opposite of that.

So remember the Golden rule? "Treat others the way you want to be treated." So if you want to be intolerant to others, others will be intolerant to you. Simple as that.

And you don't see that your rule works both ways?

When someone says something that I don't like, the thought of "punishing" them or issuing "consequences" to them doesn't even occur to me.

You clearly don't see that.

.

Your thoughts and actions have led to legal consequences of homosexuals with sodomy and gay marriage bans. So yeah, that's why it's not just your opinion, it's what you have done to the people who's lifestyle you disagree with.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yes, Comrade, it's the Bourgeois oppressing the Proletariat. In the end, if you get your way, you will go the route of all the communist tools before you, into bondage. Because you wouldn't appreciate what you have. Stop and smell the roses, this is way, way better than what you are fighting for.

I'd be happy to go back to what we had under that Commie Eisenhower.

Strong unions, full employment, good pensions.

and governmetn services that worked because the rich paid their fair share.

You'd have to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age to achieve an economy that worked the same way as the one we had during the Eisenhower administration. Somehow I think people living in Japan and Germany might have a few objections to that.

Um, not. Germany and Japan were largely rebuilt by 1955.

It really had nothing to do with those other policies, which served us pretty well through the 50's, 60's and even into the 70's.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yes, Comrade, it's the Bourgeois oppressing the Proletariat. In the end, if you get your way, you will go the route of all the communist tools before you, into bondage. Because you wouldn't appreciate what you have. Stop and smell the roses, this is way, way better than what you are fighting for.

I'd be happy to go back to what we had under that Commie Eisenhower.

Strong unions, full employment, good pensions.

and governmetn services that worked because the rich paid their fair share.

So if one percent of taxpayers earning 20% of income and paying 40% of taxes and five percent of taxpayers paying 60% of taxes isn't their "fair share," what is, Comrade? Should they pay all the taxes? Would that even be enough to quench your greed?

I think your math is a little bit off.

Part of the problem, besides you being a retard who listens to Hate Radio all day, is that you really think the Income Tax is the only tax out there.

Now, just limiting our discussion to the FEDERAL pie, Income taxes only make up 45% of the pie.

So, yeah, the rich pay more of those.

But then 36% of the pie is Medicare and SOcial Security withholding, which is born entirely by the working class. You know, the "Proletariat". Those guys. The people who do the actual ******* work.

If you drill it down and throw in state and county and city taxes, then working folks are carrying even more of the burden.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Are YOU right? Of course you are and funny as hell also.

But I never did understand how a person with Macs obvious listening skills believed that the "you didn't build that" comment wasn't taken out of context and misused.

As Mac has used that comment repeatedly in posts, it leaves me to believe that his vaunted listening and understanding skills suck. IMO. But then, I am on Mac's ignore list also.

What? He ignores you too? My goodness! How odd.

i don't understand putting people on ignore. its easy enough to scroll by someone you don't want to respond to.

In all my years on message boards, I have only put one person on permanent ignore and that was here only after one day since returning full time. You have to be a real asshole loser to be awarded that distinction in my opinion. So far the worst among you haven't deserved that treatment - even PMH.

 

[Plasmaball]

your positions have been clearly stated in your posts.

but that isn't what we are talking about. you are whining about some nebulous feeling that you can't say what you think for fear of retribution. that is the only issue i thought this thread was referencing.

and i said that you can say whatever you want. but people are going to respond accordingly.

Mac is a pro choice, anti war, gay friendly, single payer ( if private ) liberal who wants to reduce taxes on corporations to 10% or less and he is never offended by anything......except when someone else get offended. He can't stand that shit. Mac trusts the free market to protect the rights of minorities. We don't need no stinkin' laws for that.

Mac despises President Obama and bought fully into the "you didn't build that" fake outrage.

Mac also despises George Bush, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Elizabeth Warren and every other potential US president.

Amiright?

Are YOU right? Of course you are and funny as hell also.

But I never did understand how a person with Macs obvious listening skills believed that the "you didn't build that" comment wasn't taken out of context and misused.

As Mac has used that comment repeatedly in posts, it leaves me to believe that his vaunted listening and understanding skills suck. IMO. But then, I am on Mac's ignore list also.

he's mostly a broken record of sorts lately. If you disagree with him, then you are a partisan hack who doesnt get it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[I realize you're not into the whole "business" "economics" thing -- that's only for mean, greedy rich white people who cheated other people and didn't earn that and didn't build that and roads and bridges 'n stuff -- but here goes:

Market forces are choices people make. Choices create market forces. And you support people when they choose to issue consequences when they see or hear something that "offends" them. They don't have to, they choose to.

So yes, in that way, "market forces" (and you've already admitted that you don't care about free markets, so this is all pretty ironic) are intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking for fear of retribution. You're for that, I am not.

Yes. Exactly. I want that stupid homophobe living in fear that when he tells a *** joke, someone is going to run down to human resources and report his ass and he'll have to clean out his desk.

I know this will sound crazy, but there was a time when we old hippies felt lucky to live in a country that allowed us to be free with our expression, to tolerate others, to engage those with whom we disagreed in an effort to change their hearts and minds. All without issuing "consequences". See, "consequences" were something The Man issued. Today, the only people who allowed to say what they're thinking are those on your end of the political spectrum. Moderates and independents and conservatives had just better shut the **** up OR ELSE.

Of course, that was before we were discussing whether the Constitution was written by a bunch of rich white slave owners, and how America needed to be fundamentally changed. So I realize I'm being a little nostalgic for the days of freedom of expression without "consequences".

Crazy, huh?

.

Yes, it's crazy to think you can win over people who are motivated by irrational hate to the point where they vote against their own economic interests.

Which is exactly what the homophobes did in 2004. "Hey, America, I know Bush was a total ****-up, but he'll keep the fags from getting married!"

And they totally gave this guy what he didn't earn in 2000- an electoral majority.

Guess what. He wrecked the economy, gutted the middle class, expended trillions in useless wars to enrich Dick Cheney (psst. Psst. Don't tell anyone his daughter is gay!) and totally never got around to banning gay marriage.

And now that gay marriage laws are falling across the country, the homophobes are now clinging to the 'Hey, can I refuse to bake a cake or tell *** jokes in the office? Please? Please?"

So, no, I'm not feeling particularly magnanimous towards the homophobes and letting them have some corner where they can still enjoy their bigotries. Somewhere between my underwater mortgage and having to work three jobs to pay down my medical debt, I've really lost any ability to sympathize with these people.

Thank the democrats for your "underwater mortgage".

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The economy grows when the money flows. Rich people sitting on it does nothing for anyone but the rich, hence the current state of the American economy.

"The rich" don't like sitting on their money. It's against their nature.

They will only do so when the climate incentivizes them to be careful.

Like when success and growth and profits are vilified. They're not dumb.

.

for that, we all can thank Obozo.