The Brownshirts Among Us

[Truthmatters]

What does ROFLMNAO stand for?

roll on the floor laughing my ass off.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What does ROFLMNAO stand for?

Rolling on the floor laughing my natural ass off...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Man Cultwhore commited vote fraud.

OK... lets swim in the intellectual gutter (and I hope that does not confuse you, as I realize this, to you, is the deep end; real blue water work...).

“You’re a toothless loser that enjoys anal masturbation with farm implements... and sexual release through the unauthorized use of livestock.”

Now if you admit that you're statement is a spurious little conclusion drawn from and advanced for the purpose of promoting radical leftist ad hom propaganda; due to your inability to otherwise form an well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound argument in contest of anything advanced by Miss Coulter; I'll admit that mine is based upon nothing other than the severely limited intellect represented in your prose... for the purposes of delivering a delightful ad hom skewering through the exercise of a rapier wit...

 

[Chris]

Irony... she can be SUCH a bitch.

I challenge this leftist to post specific examples of these failures to which she is speaking...

Now in the unlikely event that she posts such, what we'll find is that EACH one is rooted in leftism. A fact which she will deny, NOT upon any basis in FACT, but upon little more than a litanny of platitudes; each one rooted in the mindless indoctrination of the left. "It is simply so..."

$700 billion dollars borrowed from China to occupy Iraq.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

$700 billion dollars borrowed from China to occupy Iraq.

Wow... so we borrowed $700 billion from the Chinese Governemnt to occupy Iraq?

Can you show us any evidence that the Chinese Government has written a check for $700 billion so the US government can occupy Iraq?

Now obviously you cannot, as such your entire position is a specious conclusion drawn from the idiocy hat is the leftist blogisphere...

Did China, through any number of institutions invest in US Treasury securities? Yes...

Did the US spend in deficit to fund the liberation of Iraq? Yes...

Did the Chinese Government loan the US $700 billion dollars so the US could occupy Iraq? NOOooooooo...

China bought US treasury securities because they wanted to buy someting cheap today that will be worth decidely more at some point in the future. See: Investment: US Treasury Securities...

Did the US government liberate Iraq for the purposes of occupying it? NOOooooo.

The US liberated Iraq to remove from power it's terrorist promoting national SOCIALIST government... and to provide as a result of that removal, the Iraqi people with the opportunity to govern themselves.


So we see yet another Socialist knee-jerk 'feeling' conclusively shot to hell in 300 words or less...

Now of course, the question becomes: WHY did the US Government have to spend outside of the budgeted 2.7 TRILLION dollars they have to work with to operate the US governemnt?

Was it because of all of the Conservative economic policy that has all the governments coin tied up?

Or was it because of the socialist entitlements, the programs which have for decades mandated greater and greater levels of spending... could it have been the need for massive retooling of US military logistical needs, which were deficient due to massive cuts by the socialist left, so as to free up money they claimed was necessary for social programs to help 'da po'...


Hmm.... I wonder...

 

[ReillyT]

Wow... so we borrowed $700 billion from the Chinese Governemnt to occupy Iraq?

Can you show us any evidence that the Chinese Government has written a check for $700 billion so the US government can occupy Iraq?

Now obviously you cannot, as such your entire position is a specious conclusion drawn from the idiocy hat is the leftist blogisphere...

Did China, through any number of institutions invest in US Treasury securities? Yes...

Did the US spend in deficit to fund the liberation of Iraq? Yes...

Did the Chinese Government loan the US $700 billion dollars so the US could occupy Iraq? NOOooooooo...

The US borrows by issuing debt instruments.

The Chinese (and other nations) buy the debt securities that the Government issues to finance its spending.

How is this not, essentially, the Chinese (and other countries) loaning the US money?

I give you that they don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts and don't write out a check, but it is still buying US debt instruments. It is a loan which we pay back at with interest.

 

[ReillyT]

Or was it because of the socialist entitlements, the programs which have for decades mandated greater and greater levels of spending... could it have been the need for massive retooling of US military logistical needs, which were deficient due to massive cuts by the socialist left, so as to free up money they claimed was necessary for social programs to help 'da po'...


Hmm.... I wonder...

The debt the US incurs does fund social entitlement programs... which are by and large favored by the US voter. That is why they remain untouched regardless of whether the administration is Republican or Democrat.

Some of the costs of US military intervention could be construed as being necessary due to a lack of investment by the previous administration. However, if the previous administration had made that investment, that would have cost money too. This still is government spending. Of course, no amount of reasonable up front spending would have accounted for the cost of the unnecessary war that we embroiled ourselves in.

 

[Jeepers]

Now I would like to state for the record that I do not know this leftist... and I've paid her nothing to come to this board and prove my point. She did so to the best of my knowledge of her own volition and the highest likelihood is that she is blissfully ignorant that her post represents her stark intellectual limitations, which were spoken to and stood as the central point in the post, to which she was responding and that it projects the illusion of genius on my part is just that an illusion. In truth I’m not very bright… I just look like a freakin’ Mensa when the contrast is against a leftists… so please… I had nothing to do with it.

Now again, should she return to deny her position, scream that it was misrepresented and otherwise runs to avoid accountability, I had no hand in the process other than to state my position and that she proves the position is simply Nature's way...

Thought I'd keep it simple so you could understand...

 

[Gunny]

What a bunch of nut cases!

You people really need help.

Unlike brainless fucks like you? Don't think so. Slink back to your hole, huh?

 

[Gunny]

puleeze....

wanna talk about brainwashing? talk about the geniuses who want four more years of the same failures they've had for the last eight.

Now THAT'S brainwashing.

Unlike you sheeple blindly following the Messiah over the cliff? Don't even talk to me about brainwashing. You passed the course with honors LONG ago.

As far as your baseless statement goes ... that "four more years of same" is pure partisan rhetoric and projection, and the most oft-used scare tactic of the loony left.

 

[Gunny]

My brain isn't washed.

I send it out to be dry cleaned.

I'm just cracking up that this post was started in 2006. I'm the only member of the posts in 2006 still here.

Talk about gravedigging.

 

[WillowTree]

While I agree with you, the lefties have brainwashed themselves and the uneducated otherwise.

I call it indoctrinated.

 

[editec]

Or was it because of the socialist entitlements, the programs which have for decades mandated greater and greater levels of spending... could it have been the need for massive retooling of US military logistical needs, which were deficient due to massive cuts by the socialist left, so as to free up money they claimed was necessary for social programs to help 'da po'...

No, it wasn't.

Social security had already been funded by the American who paid for it.

AS far as the rest of the welfare (which really does come out of the budget, and is not funded by people contributing to the fund, like social security has been our entire lives) that's a number so small and insignificant that you can't even FIND it on the budget. (all welfare programs are about 3% of the total revenues, BTW)

We haven't spend a trillion dollars on all the welfare programs in place in the last twenty years, dude.

Iraq is costing us a trillion dollars. That's why we had to increase the nation debt loads last year.

Wake up from your ideaological slumber and look at the real numbers.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The debt the US incurs does fund social entitlement programs... which are by and large favored by the US voter. That is why they remain untouched regardless of whether the administration is Republican or Democrat.

Some of the costs of US military intervention could be construed as being necessary due to a lack of investment by the previous administration. However, if the previous administration had made that investment, that would have cost money too. This still is government spending. Of course, no amount of reasonable up front spending would have accounted for the cost of the unnecessary war that we embroiled ourselves in.

Yep... it's the spending. Of course some spending is morally valid and some is not.

Please allow me to demonstrate...

On what principle does one man strip another man of the product of HIS labor, so that the stolen product can be used to satisfy the need of another?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, it wasn't.

Social security had already been funded by the American who paid for it.

AS far as the rest of the welfare (which really does come out of the budget, and is not funded by people contributing to the fund, like social security has been our entire lives) that's a number so small and insignificant that you can't even FIND it on the budget. (all welfare programs are about 3% of the total revenues, BTW)

We haven't spend a trillion dollars on all the welfare programs in place in the last twenty years, dude.

Iraq is costing us a trillion dollars. That's why we had to increase the nation debt loads last year.

Wake up from your ideaological slumber and look at the real numbers.

Absolutely false... The EITC is welfare 'dude'... and the list goes ON AND ON... from Federally subsidized state 'assistance' such as WIC and medicaid... changing the name and re-categorizing it doesn't change it.

The vast majority of social entitlements laid out in "The Great Society" are still fully funded and receive mandated spending increases every year...

The trillion in bailouts that the fascists in both parties just slapped on us... WELFARE... and that is a trillion bucks that went down in a WEEK~

 

[editec]

The EITC is welfare 'dude'...

Social Security is not Earned Income Tax credit.

 

[midcan5]

Have you ever heard someone tell you about some event that you were familiar with but their view of it differed from your view? Often people see things through a filter, the right wing has for 30 to 40 years created a filter that distorts reality. I was not at the events noted above, how do I know they reference reality? I don't.

But if we are rational about these assumptions then we need proof. In America we honor and respect personal freedom. We also respect a tolerant pluralistic society that includes 'all [wo]men.' So look at just two issues and it is clear who the fascists are: abortion rights and gay marriage. My right to privacy is written into our constitution as are equal rights under the constitution. The right wing wants to put into law restrictions on these rights. Enough said.


Michael Tomasky’s Critique of Liberal Fascism
Michael Tomasky’s Critique of Liberal Fascism Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind

These fit the right more than the left.
George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD American Century

And for those who want to learn:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192801554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224939819&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Kevin Passmore: Books[/ame]

 

[midcan5]

On what principle does one man strip another man of the product of HIS labor, so that the stolen product can be used to satisfy the need of another?

The phrasing of that makes it sound like theft and for some they stop there. But consider that those taxes support the infrastructure that supports all of us. The person in need of help is a member of the same society, they have a right as members and they too will eventually support others. People need to get away from economic darwinism and consider that all we do supports all of us.

"...the same claim can be made about the differences in incomes within any given society. In large part, these differences must be attributed to differences in capital ownership, of which the largest part is social capital: knowledge, and participation in kinship and other privileged social relations. In addressing the question of justice, therefore, we are assessing the justice of inheritance of such resources along bloodlines. This is a question of value, not of fact. I personally do not see any moral basis for an inalienable right to inherit resources, or to retain all the resources that one has acquired by means of economic or other activities.

The usual argument for such a right is based on the assumption of perfectly competitive markets where factors of production are paid their marginal values and where there are no externalities. But this assumption does not hold to any reasonable degree of approximation in real societies. Access to the social capital–a major source of differences in income, between and within societies–is in large part the product of externalities: membership in a particular society, and interaction with other members of that society under practices that commonly give preferred access to particular members."

UBI and the Flat Tax
>

 

[rayboyusmc]

The left is brainwashed, the right isn't?

That says a lot.