Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

[rightwinger]

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

We do better as a whole than a bunch of individuals......especially the wealthy

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting an infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

You have no concept of how a society functions. Some things are best accomplished as an individual, some are best accomplished as a part of a society

Like most libertarians, you take for granted what society does for you and assume that you, and you alone, are responsible for what you accomplish

 

[MikeK]

Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

I wouldn't care for Cuba because of its generally depressed economic condition and because I don't like the climate.

France would be okay but because of our arrogantly anti-French disposition in recent decades I've heard Americans are not well-liked there.

But why haven't you included Denmark in your recommendation? Denmark is probably the foremost socialist country in the world and its citizens are considered to be the happiest people in the world. World Happiness Report 2012: Scandinavian Countries Are Happiest On Earth (SLIDESHOW)

I'm a bit too old now to think about changing countries. But if I were younger and things continued to move in the direction the U.S. is moving in now, I certainly would consider learning the language and applying for Danish citizenship.

However, it's not that easy to be accepted there. One must have something in the way of a useful trade or profession to offer, as well as sufficient funds to sustain the first three years of residence.

Why destroy America???? We don't want your rat poison.

If you are referring generally to your fellow citizens who understand why the socialist influence on American politics was responsible for the most prosperous, productive, and the happiest decades in our history, those between the late forties and the early eighties, you are revealing the state of embittered, ignorant paranoia which has been deposited in your mind by right-wing corporatist propaganda.

This right-wing influence began with the arrival of Ronald Reagan, The Man from General Electric. It was briefly, and slightly, interrupted during the Clinton presidency, but re-emerged forcefully with the arrival of George W. Bush, who almost succeeded in destroying the American Democracy. And while I don't believe Obama is capable of reversing the corporatist trend, he is serving to temporarily impede its progress while we, hopefully, locate a more capable Progressive candidate for 2016.

Of course you will strongly disagree with me. So I should mention that I'm really not addressing this commentary to you but rather to those whose minds are not yet fully bent by right-wing, full-bore capitalist propaganda.

 

[LibertyLemming]

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting a infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

Most of those over the age of 65 vote Republican. The great majority are retired and benefit from Social Security and Medicare. With his comment about the 47 percent Mitt Romney demonstrated that he agreed with you that they are "useless blood sucking tics." I wish he expressed the attitude he shares with you in more of his campaign speeches.

What percent of society would you say "contributes"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you believe these senior citizens, who vote GOP, are blood sucking ticks, to quote the parasite, bripat?

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting a infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

Most of those over the age of 65 vote Republican. The great majority are retired and benefit from Social Security and Medicare. With his comment about the 47 percent Mitt Romney demonstrated that he agreed with you that they are "useless blood sucking tics." I wish he expressed the attitude he shares with you in more of his campaign speeches.

What percent of society would you say "contributes"?

 

[LibertyLemming]

So you believe these senior citizens, who vote GOP, are blood sucking ticks, to quote the parasite, bripat?

Most of those over the age of 65 vote Republican. The great majority are retired and benefit from Social Security and Medicare. With his comment about the 47 percent Mitt Romney demonstrated that he agreed with you that they are "useless blood sucking tics." I wish he expressed the attitude he shares with you in more of his campaign speeches.

What percent of society would you say "contributes"?

Uhh where did I say that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you denying that you believe these senior citizens are not "contributors"?

What the VA who receive pensions and disabilities treatment?

What about those who have children and have been deserted by their spouses?

And so forth?

Don't ask silly questions if you don't want them in return. You are better than bripat.

So you believe these senior citizens, who vote GOP, are blood sucking ticks, to quote the parasite, bripat?

What percent of society would you say "contributes"?

Uhh where did I say that?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Are you denying that you believe these senior citizens are not "contributors"?

What the VA who receive pensions and disabilities treatment?

What about those who have children and have been deserted by their spouses?

And so forth?

Don't ask silly questions if you don't want them in return. You are better than bripat.

So you believe these senior citizens, who vote GOP, are blood sucking ticks, to quote the parasite, bripat?

Uhh where did I say that?

Again you didn't answer the question. Might have to give up on you.

If you really wanna know what I think, I think all these programs and really anything paid for with labor based income taxes is a violation of human rights as it takes property from a person against their will.

 

[Chris]

Republicans want to leave the country if Obama wins, but they can't find a wealthy Western country without universal healthcare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for revealing that you believe in nothing of what the Founders created.

Toddle along, please.

Are you denying that you believe these senior citizens are not "contributors"?

What the VA who receive pensions and disabilities treatment?

What about those who have children and have been deserted by their spouses?

And so forth?

Don't ask silly questions if you don't want them in return. You are better than bripat.

Uhh where did I say that?

Again you didn't answer the question. Might have to give up on you.

If you really wanna know what I think, I think all these programs and really anything paid for with labor based income taxes is a violation of human rights as it takes property from a person against their will.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I could prove you wrong but I get the impression you don't care for facts.

 

[Contumacious]

Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

Why destroy America???? We don't want your rat poison.

Did you say "move" - no sireeeeeee bob.

The reason the parasites have accepted socialism is because they hate movement. They want to be fed and taken care of in the comfort of their homes. Movement requires motivation and effort - two things they lack.

Their motto is "Let the producers and taxpayers move.

.

 

[kaz]

you believe your opinions are anything but the soundings of a bigot. You are intolerant of any opinion or person who disagrees with your narrow perspectives and hold unabashed extreme opinions mindful of a young man with a smallish mustache bloviating in a beer hall in the last century.

Do as you say, not as you do, eh Wry?

 

[kiwiman127]

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

We do better as a whole than a bunch of individuals......especially the wealthy

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting an infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

Do you have a job? You seem to spend a lot of time posting here. I hope you aren't posting while you're supposed to be working.

 

[hazlnut]

Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

Why destroy America???? We don't want your rat poison.

The FOX is strong in this one...

 

[bripat9643]

Do you have a job? You seem to spend a lot of time posting here. I hope you aren't posting while you're supposed to be working.

It's Sunday, moron.

 

[regent]

One of the primary purposes of our constitution was to get the government involved in the nation's economy. The framers abolished a government with no powers and no involvment in the economy-- about as limited as a government could be--and created a new government with one of its primary purposes to be part of the economy. As soon as the first government took office, it was involved in the economy and has been since. Too much for some and not enough for others.

I don't think so, mostly they just wanted to ensure free and fair trade between the states. I do not think they ever envisioned gov't controlled health care or bailouts of businesses that were poorly run.

Trade between the states sounds like the economy was involved. And then the Jay Treaty 1794, and Pinkney Treaty 1795 both had commercial requirements. Add to that Hamilton's tariffs to help American industry, sort of suggests government involvement in the economy from day one.
As for evisioning health care, health care was a state function, but the founders didn't envision a lot of things i.e. atomic energy.
In 1912, a famous historian Charles Beard wrote a history An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution that is a must-read for most graduate students of history.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Remember how we rsn surpluses for years on end and even paid off the entire national debt once a long time ago when government was limited and there was no federal income tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians distort facts and miscast historical events and philosophies, so I am not worried about that.

I could prove you wrong but I get the impression you don't care for facts.

 

[regent]

Remember how we rsn surpluses for years on end and even paid off the entire national debt once a long time ago when government was limited and there was no federal income tax.

We paid off the debt once under a Democratic president. The implication is that it ws the limited government concept that gave us the money, might want to check out how they really got the money to pay off the debt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Beard's read is a condemnation of the Founder's economic motivations and certainly no call for libertarianism. Government has been involved in the economy since 1790.

One of the primary purposes of our constitution was to get the government involved in the nation's economy. The framers abolished a government with no powers and no involvment in the economy-- about as limited as a government could be--and created a new government with one of its primary purposes to be part of the economy. As soon as the first government took office, it was involved in the economy and has been since. Too much for some and not enough for others.

I don't think so, mostly they just wanted to ensure free and fair trade between the states. I do not think they ever envisioned gov't controlled health care or bailouts of businesses that were poorly run.

Trade between the states sounds like the economy was involved. And then the Jay Treaty 1794, and Pinkney Treaty 1795 both had commercial requirements. Add to that Hamilton's tariffs to help American industry, sort of suggests government involvement in the economy from day one.
As for evisioning health care, health care was a state function, but the founders didn't envision a lot of things i.e. atomic energy.
In 1912, a famous historian Charles Beard wrote a history An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution that is a must-read for most graduate students of history.