Why the Current Liberal Dominated Political System is About to Crash

[JimBowie1958]

I've said here often that two of my many heroes are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They contributed, they made many people wealthy, they allowed many more to live comfortably. Now they are doing maximum global good with what they have been given by being the right person in the right place at the right time.

But look at many of the wealthy. Entertainers. Being celebrity by being celebrities.

The most ruthless in business.

Politicians selling influence.

Criminals of all types.

Those whose only contribution is who they were born to or who that they married.

A motley crew for sure.

Yet they have, together, virtually all of the wealth in the country.

And for the people who create all of the wealth, formerly for themselves, but lately for the aristocracy, workers, there is nothing left.

That's not what got us to prosperity. That denies prosperity for everybody. It's the end of the golden goose.

Lol, the vast majority of millionares, if that is what we define as wealthy, are small business owners and not at all the kind of people you list.

Evidence?

There are many small business owners that are the epitome of ruthless and quite a few even criminal.

Only for myself, based on personal experience.

The motivations necessary to make the sacrifices needed to have a successful business are more often grounded in love of family, and a drive to serve God in some fashion, more often than mere greed and avarice.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The rich should labor for the benefit of the poor who intend to make pursuit of pleasure their life's work.

First, the rich don't labor. Why should they?

Second there is absolutely nobody more expert at the pursuit of pleasure than the rich. Don't you ever watch real news?

You obviously do not have any experience working for wealthy people.

There are two kinds, those who inherit their wealth and those who made it themselves.

Those who make their own wealth know how to work and likely do 60-80 hours a week. The problem with them is that they often times have little sympathy for people that work NORMAL hours and have NORMAL lives. Most of them I have met are likely to wind up without family or friends in direct correlation to how close or beyond 80 hour work weeks they have.

Those who inherit their wealth tend to be a bit guilty in their own minds (though certainly not all of them) and they go to great lengths to justify their wealth in the minds of others and their own minds.

But of this second group, there are a few of them I have met that are simply pimples on the face of US society, craven, cretinous and contemptable. But they are a very few.

We are mostly fortunate to have the wealthy folks we have as most are self-made and good solid church going people. Only some of them are a problem and most of those are in the top management at international corporations or Wall Street banks. These I think are the kinds of people the guillotines and firing squads were made for.

Am I the only one who sees the glaring dichotomy in that paragraph?

 

[JimBowie1958]

First, the rich don't labor. Why should they?

Second there is absolutely nobody more expert at the pursuit of pleasure than the rich. Don't you ever watch real news?

You obviously do not have any experience working for wealthy people.

There are two kinds, those who inherit their wealth and those who made it themselves.

Those who make their own wealth know how to work and likely do 60-80 hours a week. The problem with them is that they often times have little sympathy for people that work NORMAL hours and have NORMAL lives. Most of them I have met are likely to wind up without family or friends in direct correlation to how close or beyond 80 hour work weeks they have.

Those who inherit their wealth tend to be a bit guilty in their own minds (though certainly not all of them) and they go to great lengths to justify their wealth in the minds of others and their own minds.

But of this second group, there are a few of them I have met that are simply pimples on the face of US society, craven, cretinous and contemptable. But they are a very few.

We are mostly fortunate to have the wealthy folks we have as most are self-made and good solid church going people. Only some of them are a problem and most of those are in the top management at international corporations or Wall Street banks. These I think are the kinds of people the guillotines and firing squads were made for.

Am I the only one who sees the glaring dichotomy in that paragraph?

Perhaps, but only if one ignores "Only some of them are a problem," which I am sure was an innocent reading comprehension mistake.

Explains a whole lot, however.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You obviously do not have any experience working for wealthy people.

There are two kinds, those who inherit their wealth and those who made it themselves.

Those who make their own wealth know how to work and likely do 60-80 hours a week. The problem with them is that they often times have little sympathy for people that work NORMAL hours and have NORMAL lives. Most of them I have met are likely to wind up without family or friends in direct correlation to how close or beyond 80 hour work weeks they have.

Those who inherit their wealth tend to be a bit guilty in their own minds (though certainly not all of them) and they go to great lengths to justify their wealth in the minds of others and their own minds.

But of this second group, there are a few of them I have met that are simply pimples on the face of US society, craven, cretinous and contemptable. But they are a very few.

We are mostly fortunate to have the wealthy folks we have as most are self-made and good solid church going people. Only some of them are a problem and most of those are in the top management at international corporations or Wall Street banks. These I think are the kinds of people the guillotines and firing squads were made for.

Am I the only one who sees the glaring dichotomy in that paragraph?

Perhaps, but only if one ignores "Only some of them are a problem," which I am sure was an innocent reading comprehension mistake.

Explains a whole lot, however.

No, it wasn't ignored. Would Jesus tell you to kill those who were only guilty of stealing?

 

[PMZ]

There is absolutely ZERO conflict in what you stated.

International corporations and central Banks LOVE socialism, dude.

Under pure socialism, "International corporations and central Banks" wouldn't exist.

That’s why virtually all countries today employ a mixture of socialism and private enterprise.

True, I think Fabian socialism is about as harsh an economic Marxism as one would find today, and not all socialism traces back to Marx. It existed prior to 'Das Kapital' in the form of communal societies and other economic critics like Proudhon, whom history is going to judge far more kindly than Marx, is my bet anyway.

Socialism was introduced as part of the American economic system by Ben Franklin. Socialism in hand with Capitalism are practiced by virtually all countries in the world today. A victory for common sense.

 

[PMZ]

Only some of every category of human effort are criminal. Those are the ones that choose to live outside of what has been democratically decided to be the limits of what anyone should be allowed to impose on others. In other words, the responsibility of government to impose legal consequences on for tyrannical behavior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's what far too many Americans tolerate. 20% of the population have 85% of the wealth and they will not settle for less than all of it.

Red herring. You know you cannot refute what I said, so you try to change the subject.

You can't refute what I said. And what I said is the biggest contributor to American dysfunction that there is.

Since you refuse to even try to refute my statement, I accept your concession of the point.

 

[PMZ]

Red herring. You know you cannot refute what I said, so you try to change the subject.

You can't refute what I said. And what I said is the biggest contributor to American dysfunction that there is.

Since you refuse to even try to refute my statement, I accept your concession of the point.

You mean this?

"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries. It fueled the industrial revolution and has been the backbone of the American Dream since there's been one.

What's new is extreme conservatism which started as a joke called Those Were the Days and was elevated by a naer do well named Limbaugh. He turned it into a cottage industry that culminated in Rupert Murdock and Fox News pimping for the Republican Party.

It's apogee was the reign of Bush II installed by his father.

As the consequences of conservatism came home to roost, holy wars, skyrocketing debt, the Great Recession, and massive bankruptcies, the nation shook off its stupor and began the long road to recovery.

Liberalism never left America and is the same political philosophy that guided Ben Franklin and the Constitutional Convention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't refute what I said. And what I said is the biggest contributor to American dysfunction that there is.

Since you refuse to even try to refute my statement, I accept your concession of the point.

You mean this?
"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

Yes, that.

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries

Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

 

[PMZ]

Since you refuse to even try to refute my statement, I accept your concession of the point.

You mean this?
"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

Yes, that.

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries

Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

You are, of course, wrong. But I understand the dilemma created when you fell for the Limbaugh BS, and publically swore allegiance to what turned out to be toxic Kool-aid.

I don't have advice for you. You must lie in the bed that you created.

Or, admit to your gross stupidity in falling for Archie Bunker land.

 

[Pogo]

Since you refuse to even try to refute my statement, I accept your concession of the point.

You mean this?
"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

Yes, that.

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries

Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

In other words you're just going to write your own dictionary.

Please. "Classical" my ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Am I the only one who sees the glaring dichotomy in that paragraph?

Perhaps, but only if one ignores "Only some of them are a problem," which I am sure was an innocent reading comprehension mistake.

Explains a whole lot, however.

No, it wasn't ignored.

Then, what, you just have a reading comprehension issue here then?

I stated, "We are mostly fortunate to have the wealthy folks we have as most are self-made and good solid church going people. Only some of them are a problem and most of those are in the top management at international corporations or Wall Street banks. These I think are the kinds of people the guillotines and firing squads were made for."

If I say most of group A are Green, but some of group A are blue, and of those blue some of them border on being violet, you would think I don't know the difference between green and violet?

Dude, critical thinking courses are available.

Would Jesus tell you to kill those who were only guilty of stealing?

Jesus doesn't tell me to do things, seriously, you have issues.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Under pure socialism, "International corporations and central Banks" wouldn't exist.

That’s why virtually all countries today employ a mixture of socialism and private enterprise.

True, I think Fabian socialism is about as harsh an economic Marxism as one would find today, and not all socialism traces back to Marx. It existed prior to 'Das Kapital' in the form of communal societies and other economic critics like Proudhon, whom history is going to judge far more kindly than Marx, is my bet anyway.

Socialism was introduced as part of the American economic system by Ben Franklin. Socialism in hand with Capitalism are practiced by virtually all countries in the world today. A victory for common sense.

Could you further enlighten me as to Franklins socialism?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You mean this?
"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

Yes, that.

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries

Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

In other words you're just going to write your own dictionary.

Please. "Classical" my ass.

Lol, today's liberals are not classic liberals, not by any means. The liberalism of JFK, FDR, and older people known as liberals had trust in the common man, democracy, the US people, etc.

Todays liberals are mostly elitist Marxists of one blend or another, not real liberals of the JFK mold at all.

Oh, wait, this is where Pogo tells me that he and his buddies in the smoky backrooms have already discussed this subject and the now universal conclusion is that JFK was just as liberal as liberals are today, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries. ...Liberalism never left America and is the same political philosophy that guided Ben Franklin and the Constitutional Convention.

Lol, no, same words, totally different meanings behind them.

First of all Franklin was what liberals of today would call a racist as were most of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln too while on the topic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You mean this?
"Modern American Liberalism exists only because far too many tolerate the fact that the federal government forces people to provide goods and services to others - that is, the government engages in invkoluntary servitude."

Yes, that.

American Liberalism is not modern. It's what sparked the Revolution and what caused the growth in America's stature among countries

Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

You are, of course, wrong.

You and I both know it is impossible for you to demonstrate how I am wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, that.


Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

You are, of course, wrong.

You and I both know it is impossible for you to demonstrate how I am wrong.

But he will keep saying it to try and goad you into getting banned.

 

[PMZ]

True, I think Fabian socialism is about as harsh an economic Marxism as one would find today, and not all socialism traces back to Marx. It existed prior to 'Das Kapital' in the form of communal societies and other economic critics like Proudhon, whom history is going to judge far more kindly than Marx, is my bet anyway.

Socialism was introduced as part of the American economic system by Ben Franklin. Socialism in hand with Capitalism are practiced by virtually all countries in the world today. A victory for common sense.

Could you further enlighten me as to Franklins socialism?

The postal system and postal roads.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, that.


Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

In other words you're just going to write your own dictionary.

Please. "Classical" my ass.

Lol, today's liberals are not classic liberals, not by any means. The liberalism of JFK, FDR, and older people known as liberals had trust in the common man, democracy, the US people, etc.

Todays liberals are mostly elitist Marxists of one blend or another, not real liberals of the JFK mold at all.

Oh, wait, this is where Pogo tells me that he and his buddies in the smoky backrooms have already discussed this subject and the now universal conclusion is that JFK was just as liberal as liberals are today, lol.

"Todays liberals are mostly elitist Marxists"

What a powerful statement this would be if accompanied by some evidence. In the absence of that, it's merely what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, that.


Incorrect. That was Classical American Liberalism. Modern American Liberalism is not evem close to the same thing as the Modern American Liberal has little to no ideological commonality with his Classical counterpart.

I understand now that you refused to address what I said because you do not have the basic understanding necessary to do so. You may run along now.

You are, of course, wrong.

You and I both know it is impossible for you to demonstrate how I am wrong.

You asserted it. Prove it.