Where The Heck Did All These Leftists Come From??

[Uncensored2008]

You are the link.

The long sought after missing link is the lowly troll?

Who woulda guessed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're projecting.

A surplus is when cash inflow exceeds cash outflow. That's it. We ran surpluses.

Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.

The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe.

It is telling that you would rather avoid post #136, above.

You're projecting in post 136. The post is irrelevant to the surpluses generated in the 90s.

Let's review, shall we?

a) The term "surplus" in combination with the fact that the debt increased, is syncretic to say the least.

b) A clue to the provenance of the bogus "surplus" can be seen in that the effusive awe and wonder is reserved for Democrats

c) What really gives it a away is the absence of any mention of President Reagan's Social Security Reform which provide the funds used as 'ammunition' to claim that there was a "surplus.'


So you see, your defense of the fabrication is, in reality, an inability to fight your way free of the miasma.

 

[there4eyeM]

Hey, PoliChic!

You do realize that, by definittion, the rebels were to the left of the King of England, don't you? After all, the terms left and right began in relation to the monarch.

Were you served with the papers?

René Descartes is suing you over the avi.

I think not.

But you do agree the Rebels were left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, PoliChic!

You do realize that, by definittion, the rebels were to the left of the King of England, don't you? After all, the terms left and right began in relation to the monarch.

Were you served with the papers?

René Descartes is suing you over the avi.

I think not.

But you do agree the Rebels were left.

"I think not."
Wow.....was that accidentally prescient!!!


There is not the slightest connection between the folks who created the nation, and what is known as "Left" today.


And now for the remedial which you so richly require.


From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



Again: "...socialism would distribute prosperity..."

One can see the straight line from the early socialists, the 'left,' to Barack Obama.

 

[there4eyeM]

It seems clear that you have confused me with someone defending 'left'. If the word has evolved over time, that is what happens to language. The idea(s) of democracy have similarly evolved, even to the point where women (could anyone believe it?) are today at least nominally considered equal to white males and can vote, hold office, etc.

'Left' and 'right', especially the way most Americans use the terms, hardly mean anything. Most people want a 'fair' society and don't care what the ideological labels are.
If the really rich were really fair, there would not be much debate. Aid and needed help would be accomplished without the government, a situation personally preferable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems clear that you have confused me with someone defending 'left'. If the word has evolved over time, that is what happens to language. The idea(s) of democracy have similarly evolved, even to the point where women (could anyone believe it?) are today at least nominally considered equal to white males and can vote, hold office, etc.

'Left' and 'right', especially the way most Americans use the terms, hardly mean anything. Most people want a 'fair' society and don't care what the ideological labels are.
If the really rich were really fair, there would not be much debate. Aid and needed help would be accomplished without the government, a situation personally preferable.

"'Left' and 'right', especially the way most Americans use the terms, hardly mean anything."

Absurd.


Here is a simple test for a simple fellow:

Government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Is this a closer description of 'Left' or 'right'?

a. If you can answer correctly, then your statement above is patently false.

b. If you cannot answer it correctly, then you will have identified to which, 'Left' or 'right' you belong.




Is there a stipend for which I am eligible for this instruction?

 

[bobcollum]

^ Wants a "Government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

Voting for Mitt Romney, probably.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ Wants a "Government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

Voting for Mitt Romney, probably.

Could you put in the effort that would make your post even more abstruse.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Wants a "Government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

Voting for Mitt Romney, probably.

Could you put in the effort that would make your post even more abstruse.

Copy/paste queen is complaining about effort.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ Wants a "Government based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

Voting for Mitt Romney, probably.

Could you put in the effort that would make your post even more abstruse.

Copy/paste queen is complaining about effort.

My posts have a point.....you should learn from same.

Clearly, you are a non-dimensional individual with a one-dimensional view of the world.


And remember what you learned from Obama.....bow to a Queen.

 

[bobcollum]

Could you put in the effort that would make your post even more abstruse.

Copy/paste queen is complaining about effort.

My posts have a point.....you should learn from same.

Clearly, you are a non-dimensional individual with a one-dimensional view of the world.


And remember what you learned from Obama.....bow to a Queen.

:yawn:

*awaits post further declaring superiority*

 

[PoliticalChic]

Copy/paste queen is complaining about effort.

My posts have a point.....you should learn from same.

Clearly, you are a non-dimensional individual with a one-dimensional view of the world.


And remember what you learned from Obama.....bow to a Queen.

:yawn:

*awaits post further declaring superiority*

Well, then....

...let's focus on you, not very exciting....but let's be honest.

Your writing is pedestrian, you're posts are regularly pointless....case in point, above....

not clever, not funny....

...but, hey, it keeps you off the streets.

I would strongly suggest a great deal of reading.....Thinking may be out of the question.


...BTW, you should stop announcing at the drive-through that your order is “to go.”

 

[bobcollum]

You don't understand PC, your posting style lulls most people into a state of near vegetation.

Maybe I'll appear smarter to you if I copy/paste other peoples work more often, it has obviously helped your self-esteem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.

The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....

...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.


As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.

I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'

While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.


While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.

No, there was a budget surplus. The budget of the federal government was balanced.

There's a reason the term 'off-budget' exists. See if you can find someone to explain to you that reason.

National Debt.
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999



See if you can find someone to do the math for you.

Like I said, get someone to explain the term off-budget

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

"The budget" refers to the unified budget, which includes all money coming into the US government and all money going out. The unified budget includes social security receipts and expenditures. Social security was in surplus, so of course the fiscal balance would have been lower excluding social security. No one is saying otherwise.

Your source doesn't say there wasn't a surplus. He doesn't say it because there was.

Please stop.

From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]



From my side it is the reality of spending by government.


You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.

My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.

She heard this somewhere and now it's stuck to her head like a tick. You won't dislodge it.

The ineducable are always among us.

 

[Rambunctious]

You don't understand PC, your posting style lulls most people into a state of near vegetation.

Maybe I'll appear smarter to you if I copy/paste other peoples work more often, it has obviously helped your self-esteem.

No...don't think you could appear smarter...nope...don't think it's got a shot of happening...Just ain't possible...you need to be smart to ever appear smarter and sorry but...nope don't see it...just can't get my arms around it...smarter? nope not you Bob just not possible...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't understand PC, your posting style lulls most people into a state of near vegetation.

Maybe I'll appear smarter to you if I copy/paste other peoples work more often, it has obviously helped your self-esteem.

1. The 'copy and paste' perseveration is no more than an excuse by folks who can't compete...as there is no randomness involved.

My posts are carefully crafted to make and exploit a point.

The charge itself identifies those who are ill-read, ill-informed, and emotionally ill-equipped to handle the discussion.



2. "...your posting style lulls most people into a state of near vegetation."
Really? Did you interview every one of the hundreds who read the multitude of posts?
Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?

Your analysis doesn't seem to conform to the feedback that I get.


3. "...if I copy/paste other peoples work..."

I never suggested a mode, I suggested that you add content.
And, I don't copy other people's work...I document mine.

The fact that you can't tell the difference bodes ill for your future as one offering insightful posts.


4. And, most to the point.....I will decide what and how I post.

If you had the education, I would suggest that you study the poem "Invictus," by Henley to understand #4.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...



Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube



From my side it is the reality of spending by government.


You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.

My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.

She heard this somewhere and now it's stuck to her head like a tick. You won't dislodge it.

The ineducable are always among us.

Don't you feel "dirty" having made a promise to admit Food Stamps are used in the ways I've suggested....

...and then reneged on the promise?

 

[PoliticalChic]

From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...



Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube



From my side it is the reality of spending by government.


You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.

My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.

She heard this somewhere and now it's stuck to her head like a tick. You won't dislodge it.

The ineducable are always among us.

Recently I've noticed a recurring phenomenon....

You try to interact with more intelligent posters.....

...and they ignore you.


Telling?

 

[onecut39]

^ Still, nothing.

Of course you have to say that.


But, I am curious.....you have such an ornate, Baroque avi....

...it stands in juxtaposition to your empty, jejune posts.



Is that like bald guys growing big, thick sideburns?

Oh wow! Big words. Weird words. Scary! I am so impressed. It is said if you cannot move them with logic.......bury them in bullshit!