NationStates Jolt Archive

If any of you think Government is a good thing then why don't you test out North Korea or go back in time to the Soviet Union, then you can get a wonderful taste of what will eventually come of Liberal policies. This increased debt and spending is terrible even compared to Bush's. Inflation will destroy this country if Obama is allowed to continue his shopping spree. He is only printing money and increasing debt. Part of the Global Warming debate is that we are leaving the issue for our children to clean up, but what makes this any different. The only difference is this will actually screw our children because they will have to deal with it unless we can stop the waste now. Tell me which sounds more able to help the economy. Businesses allowed to do what they want with only a few laws protecting workers and the consumers or massive government that tells businesses how to run themselves and the very same government taxes the rich unfairly and says it gives it to the poor, but actually goes to studies on ketchup or how Global cooling effects monkeys. Just to let you know we have one of those choices and I didn't even throw in the most extreme version of it. What groups are taxed less under Obama than Reagan cause last I checked Obama wants to raise taxes and you can see how that is working in New York City. I want someone to give me historically facts of Liberalism(socialism or communism) working as well as Capitalism is working now even in a recession. The reason I am defending the Republican party is because third parties only get the other side elected, but if I had a choice without worrying about Obama getting re-elected then I would take it in a heart beat because Liberalism has destroyed the Republican party(it's politicians are too Liberal in their beliefs). I don't assume everyone who criticizes Bush is Liberal, but that is the group I am targeting(I don't agree with all of Bush's issues and above all I think he was too soft with Democrats). To those of you who are worried about my spelling this next sentence is for you. cccrrrrryyyyyyy mmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. It is badly typed just for you to mock me with, but yes I did use the wrong word and it will happen again because your reaction to it just motivated me to use worser english.

sorry I forgot to break up my typing. I figure I should apologize now before I get seen as an insensitive person as well.

why don't you test out North Korea or go back in time to the Soviet Union, then you can get a wonderful taste of what will eventually come of Liberal policies.

AHAHAHAHA... this is such an awesome statement. I must sig it!

If any of you think Government is a good thing then why don't you test out North Korea or go back in time to the Soviet Union, then you can get a wonderful taste of what will eventually come of Liberal policies. This increased debt and spending is terrible even compared to Bush's. Inflation will destroy this country if Obama is allowed to continue his shopping spree. He is only printing money and increasing debt. Part of the Global Warming debate is that we are leaving the issue for our children to clean up, but what makes this any different. The only difference is this will actually screw our children because they will have to deal with it unless we can stop the waste now. Tell me which sounds more able to help the economy. Businesses allowed to do what they want with only a few laws protecting workers and the consumers or massive government that tells businesses how to run themselves and the very same government taxes the rich unfairly and says it gives it to the poor, but actually goes to studies on ketchup or how Global cooling effects monkeys. Just to let you know we have one of those choices and I didn't even throw in the most extreme version of it. What groups are taxed less under Obama than Reagan cause last I checked Obama wants to raise taxes and you can see how that is working in New York City. I want someone to give me historically facts of Liberalism(socialism or communism) working as well as Capitalism is working now even in a recession. The reason I am defending the Republican party is because third parties only get the other side elected, but if I had a choice without worrying about Obama getting re-elected then I would take it in a heart beat because Liberalism has destroyed the Republican party(it's politicians are too Liberal in their beliefs). I don't assume everyone who criticizes Bush is Liberal, but that is the group I am targeting(I don't agree with all of Bush's issues and above all I think he was too soft with Democrats). To those of you who are worried about my spelling this next sentence is for you. cccrrrrryyyyyyy mmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. It is badly typed just for you to mock me with, but yes I did use the wrong word and it will happen again because your reaction to it just motivated me to use worser english.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

sorry I forgot to break up my typing. I figure I should apologize now before I get seen as an insensitive person as well.

Oh, apparently it was actually something else you forgot how to use:
http://www.ipmc.cnrs.fr/~duprat/neurophysiology/images/brain2.jpg

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;14707750]I think you forgot how to use this:

Yes and I did apologize, but apparently i was not fast enough.



so to make up for it I will


over


use

it.

and yes I fail at quoting

Anyone serious should dress up as a Mohawk.

Not funny. :mad:
It was insulting to my ancestors then (what they would and should have done if they'd known...) and I find it insulting today.

Oh, apparently it was actually something else you forgot how to use:
http://www.ipmc.cnrs.fr/~duprat/neurophysiology/images/brain2.jpg

no actually I use mine, but see you are showing your true Liberal colors right here. Instead of debating you get reduced to insults, but just to be mean I will do the opposite. You are a clever and smart individual.

If any of you think Government is a good thing then why don't you test out North Korea or go back in time to the Soviet Union, then you can get a wonderful taste of what will eventually come of Liberal policies.
Hm. Didn't I already mention that the Russian Revolution really helped develop Moscow from the capital of a third-rate power to the capital of a first-rate power?
This increased debt and spending is terrible even compared to Bush's. Inflation will destroy this country if Obama is allowed to continue his shopping spree. He is only printing money and increasing debt.
Our debt is denominated in dollars. Ergo, inflation and debt increase are actually hedged against each other.
Part of the Global Warming debate is that we are leaving the issue for our children to clean up, but what makes this any different. The only difference is this will actually screw our children because they will have to deal with it unless we can stop the waste now.
Global warming is very physically real, and its damage is happening right now, and we - not just our children, but us as well - will have to deal with its effects.

The economy is much easier to change than the climate.
Tell me which sounds more able to help the economy. Businesses allowed to do what they want with only a few laws protecting workers and the consumers or massive government that tells businesses how to run themselves and the very same government taxes the rich unfairly and says it gives it to the poor, but actually goes to studies on ketchup or how Global cooling effects monkeys.
False dilemma.
Just to let you know we have one of those choices and I didn't even throw in the most extreme version of it.
But still a false dilemma.
What groups are taxed less under Obama than Reagan cause last I checked Obama wants to raise taxes and you can see how that is working in New York City.
NYC is frankly one of the most fantastic concentrations of wealth. So yes, that's working quite well for New York City.
I want someone to give me historically facts of Liberalism(socialism or communism) working as well as Capitalism is working now even in a recession.
....

You're asking for an example of something working better than something that is demonstrating complete systemic failure. Please set me a higher standard.
The reason I am defending the Republican party is because third parties only get the other side elected,
Unless you use a better voting system. So start working on getting something else adopted.
but if I had a choice without worrying about Obama getting re-elected then I would take it in a heart beat because Liberalism has destroyed the Republican party(it's politicians are too Liberal in their beliefs).
The Republican party is only "liberal" in comparison to genuine totalitarian fascists.
I don't assume everyone who criticizes Bush is Liberal, but that is the group I am targeting(I don't agree with all of Bush's issues and above all I think he was too soft with Democrats). To those of you who are worried about my spelling this next sentence is for you. cccrrrrryyyyyyy mmmmmeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. It is badly typed just for you to mock me with, but yes I did use the wrong word and it will happen again because your reaction to it just motivated me to use worser english.
It makes you seem less intelligent and therefore means fewer people will take you seriously.

If any of you think Government is a good thing then why don't you test out North Korea


If you think Government is not a good thing, why don't you test out one of the long-lasting anarchist states?


This increased debt and spending is terrible even compared to Bush's.


This increased debt and spending is caused by Bush.


What groups are taxed less under Obama than Reagan cause last I checked Obama wants to raise taxes and you can see how that is working in New York City.


Show me Obama raising taxes.


I want someone to give me historically facts of Liberalism(socialism or communism) working as well as Capitalism is working now even in a recession.


Lots of European nations have 'liberal' models.


he was too soft with Democrats

Too soft, how?

no actually I use mine, but see you are showing your true Liberal colors right here. Instead of debating you get reduced to insults, but just to be mean I will do the opposite. You are a clever and smart individual.


It makes you seem less intelligent and therefore means fewer people will take you seriously.

Basically, this. Yeah, I know I'm not really throwing serious debate your way. If you can't be assed to make your posts readable, why should I particularly care what you have to say?

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

Basically, this. Yeah, I know I'm not really throwing serious debate your way. If you can't be assed to make your posts readable, why should I particularly care what you have to say?

Because when I do the type of stuff like llllehjrghj or w/e I'm proving a point that if people only care about spelling and not the issues then there problem is with me and not my politics so I don't take kindly to people like that. If everyone went crazy over spelling errors or the use of wrong words the things would move slower than the government.

What groups are taxed less under Obama than Reagan
I believe that every bracket is taxed less under Obama than under Reagan.

Because when I do the type of stuff like llllehjrghj or w/e I'm proving a point that if people only care about spelling and not the issues then there problem is with me and not my politics so I don't take kindly to people like that. If everyone went crazy over spelling errors or the use of wrong words the things would move slower than the government.

There's a difference between the occasional misspelling and posting a giant block of unformatted text. Nobody, after all, is perfect (well, except for me, of course:wink:). But not even making a basic effort to make your post readable indicates that you just do not care. And if you don't care about your argument, then why should anybody else?

I won't make a big deal about a simple spelling error; I might point it out, especially if it is, for some reason, amusing, but I that's about as far as I'll go. I will, however, care if somebody doesn't even try.

If you think Government is not a good thing, why don't you test out one of the long-lasting anarchist states?



This increased debt and spending is caused by Bush.



Show me Obama raising taxes.



Lots of European nations have 'liberal' models.



Too soft, how?


Government is a necessary evil, but by no mean is it a good thing. When has it been helpful to anyone.

In part, but Obama will beat Bush's spending real soon with his policies.

Show me Obama Lowering taxes. He is a Liberal. It is by his nature to raise taxes and not to listen to the people he is taxing.

Yes and do you see any European countries being world powers? I don't and we probably never will.

Bush tried being bipartisan. Not only is this unwise for the country, but it is unwise for him because you see the love he got for it don't you? This is the reason for the spending and some of his policies that I feel make things worse. No Child Left Behind is essentially communism for education. Punish the kids who succeed by working more with the others to pull there scores up, but in the end it drops all of the scores.

There's a difference between the occasional misspelling and posting a giant block of unformatted text. Nobody, after all, is perfect (well, except for me, of course:wink:). But not even making a basic effort to make your post readable indicates that you just do not care. And if you don't care about your argument, then why should anybody else?

I won't make a big deal about a simple spelling error; I might point it out, especially if it is, for some reason, amusing, but I that's about as far as I'll go. I will, however, care if somebody doesn't even try.

Well If you will notice I have been fixing my major errors and I am trying to be as grammatically correct as possible, but I do not like it when people make that the main issue when it is not that important, but I do see what you are saying.

I believe that every bracket is taxed less under Obama than under Reagan.

Obama has yet to lower or raise the taxes so therefore they are not Obama's, but rather Bush's. Liberals like to only blame the negative on Bush, but anything positive is obviously not Bush even if the changes happened under him(sarcasm intended for the last part).

Government is a necessary evil, but by no mean is it a good thing. When has it been helpful to anyone.


You suggested government was intrinsically 'bad'. I asked you a question based on the assumption of no government, which you've avoided, by trying to shift the burden back to me.


In part, but Obama will beat Bush's spending real soon with his policies.


I don't doubt it.


Show me Obama Lowering taxes. He is a Liberal. It is by his nature to raise taxes and not to listen to the people he is taxing.


Don't be a troll.

Reagan is pretty much the textbook tax-and-spend icon of a generation, and yet people still keep claiming it's a democrat vice. Despite Bush's spend-and-spend terms.


Yes and do you see any European countries being world powers? I don't and we probably never will.


England? France? Germany? Spain?

Have you any idea what you are talking about?


Bush tried being bipartisan. Not only is this unwise for the country, but it is unwise for him because you see the love he got for it don't you?

Bush said he was going to be bipartisan, but his party used a majority to use pressure tactics like 'the nuclear option'. The last 8 years have not been bipartisan. It remains to be seen if the next 8 will.

Government is a necessary evil, but by no mean is it a good thing. When has it been helpful to anyone.

In part, but Obama will beat Bush's spending real soon with his policies.

Show me Obama Lowering taxes. He is a Liberal. It is by his nature to raise taxes and not to listen to the people he is taxing.
So are you not capable of watching the news on the issues you post about? If you had, you would not need us to tell you that Obama's proposed tax rates are lower than Reagan's. You seem to prefer not to read about this issue at all and instead make claims based on your own prejudice against "Liberals."

Yes and do you see any European countries being world powers? I don't and we probably never will.
And now you can predict the future? Tell me: How do you propose to have the US be a world power if it gets rid of government, which you think is so horrible?

Obama has yet to lower or raise the taxes so therefore they are not Obama's, but rather Bush's. Liberals like to only blame the negative on Bush, but anything positive is obviously not Bush even if the changes happened under him(sarcasm intended for the last part).
Pretending that's true for a moment, the flip-side is obviously true -- the rightwingers love to blame anything negative that Bush did on someone else. First everything he did was Clinton's fault. Now everything he did is Obama's fault.

Obama has yet to lower or raise the taxes...

"The tax cuts included in the economic stimulus plan lower taxes for 95 percent of American workers, Obama said, calling it "the most progressive tax cut in American history.""

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-47441239829200/

Obama has yet to lower or raise the taxes so therefore they are not Obama's, but rather Bush's.

Obama plans on permanently extending Bush's 2001/2003 tax rates for the first four tax brackets [10, 15, 25 and 28 percent] and plans on allowing Bush's tax rates for the last two brackets to return to the pre-2001/2003 tax rates (meaning they will return to 36 and 39.6 percent). Obama is not raising taxes so much as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and those increased taxes will only affect the upper class. Source: w.w.w.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

In response to one of your previous posts, Obama supporters say that the tax rates will be lower than under Reagan because they will be. At the beginning of Reagan's first term, the lowest and highest tax brackets were taxed at 14 percent and 70 percent, respectively. By Reagan's last term, those rates fell to 11 percent and 38.5 percent, respectively, although the top marginal tax bracket only changed to 38.5 percent during Reagan's last year in office. For most of Reagan's 8 years in office, those tax rates were 11 percent and 50 percent. Compared to Obama's plan to keep taxes on those brackets at 10 percent and 39.6 percent, the claim that Obama will tax the country less than Reagan is for the most part accurate.
Source: w.w.w.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=543&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=38

Please remove the periods between the w's, I cannot post direct links until after I have made 4 posts.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

"The tax cuts included in the economic stimulus plan lower taxes for 95 percent of American workers, Obama said, calling it "the most progressive tax cut in American history.""

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-47441239829200/

until he raises them and mark my words" he will."

Every time liberals promise tax cuts they deliver for a little while then they raise them for the "benefit" of everyone.

Now I guess Obama would be willing to lower taxes, but he has also said he would pull out of Iraq real soon in the campaign and that didn't work out for the extreme liberal voters, but it worked out for the Iraqi's.

Now tell me something why do you think it's a good thing he is lowering taxes? is it because you just have to defend him or is it because you believe tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if a democrat does them?

Pretending that's true for a moment, the flip-side is obviously true -- the rightwingers love to blame anything negative that Bush did on someone else. First everything he did was Clinton's fault. Now everything he did is Obama's fault.

No the only things that are Obama's fault is the stimulus and a lot of the spending that is happening. The economy was not his fault because he never did anything as a politician that could cause any problems because all he did was vote present and maybe a couple yay's or nay's.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

Obama plans on permanently extending Bush's 2001/2003 tax rates for the first four tax brackets [10, 15, 25 and 28 percent] and plans on allowing Bush's tax rates for the last two brackets to return to the pre-2001/2003 tax rates (meaning they will return to 36 and 39.6 percent). Obama is not raising taxes so much as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and those increased taxes will only affect the upper class. Source: w.w.w.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

In response to one of your previous posts, Obama supporters say that the tax rates will be lower than under Reagan because they will be. At the beginning of Reagan's first term, the lowest and highest tax brackets were taxed at 14 percent and 70 percent, respectively. By Reagan's last term, those rates fell to 11 percent and 38.5 percent, respectively, although the top marginal tax bracket only changed to 38.5 percent during Reagan's last year in office. For most of Reagan's 8 years in office, those tax rates were 11 percent and 50 percent. Compared to Obama's plan to keep taxes on those brackets at 10 percent and 39.6 percent, the claim that Obama will tax the country less than Reagan is for the most part accurate.
Source: w.w.w.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=543&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=38

Please remove the periods between the w's, I cannot post direct links until after I have made 4 posts.

This gets to a point I just posted that this will only be temporary, buy for the sake of the argument that they are permanent. Why did people get mad at Bush lowering taxes and his spending being so high by saying that he will have to raise taxes to pay for all this?

What makes Obama different? The fact that he is spending more or is it the fact(according to your source) he is lowering taxes more? People are praising Obama for some of the same things they bashed Bush for and that is getting really annoying.

until he raises them and mark my words" he will."

President Obama has not made any statements or indicated in any way that he plans on raising anything other than the top marginal tax rates, so that is not very likely.

Every time liberals promise tax cuts they deliver for a little while then they raise them for the "benefit" of everyone.

Under Carter, the lowest and highest tax brackets were taxed at 14 percent and 70 percent for his entire term. Under Clinton, the lowest tax bracket stayed at 15 percent for all eight years and the highest tax bracket rose from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. What records are you basing your claim on?

Now I guess Obama would be willing to lower taxes, but he has also said he would pull out of Iraq real soon in the campaign and that didn't work out for the extreme liberal voters, but it worked out for the Iraqi's.

I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say that President Obama has been very consistent in saying that the troop withdrawal from Iraq would be based on feedback from commanders on the ground in Iraq.

Now tell me something why do you think it's a good thing he is lowering taxes? is it because you just have to defend him or is it because you believe tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if a democrat does them?

Now that's a strawman if I have ever seen one. No one as far as I can tell has made the argument that tax cuts are only good when under a Democratic Administration.

You suggested government was intrinsically 'bad'. I asked you a question based on the assumption of no government, which you've avoided, by trying to shift the burden back to me.



I don't doubt it.



Don't be a troll.

Reagan is pretty much the textbook tax-and-spend icon of a generation, and yet people still keep claiming it's a democrat vice. Despite Bush's spend-and-spend terms.



England? France? Germany? Spain?

Have you any idea what you are talking about?



Bush said he was going to be bipartisan, but his party used a majority to use pressure tactics like 'the nuclear option'. The last 8 years have not been bipartisan. It remains to be seen if the next 8 will.

well no government is not good and that what I was essentially was saying when I said it was a necessary evil. The point of government is to grant people rights as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. It is not for babysitting people 24/7 on all issues.

Since when did Reagan tax people like crazy and since when did lowering taxes become something Liberals like to do because most of the time they only say it to get elected then they raise taxes(Clinton).

European countries are powerful, don't get me wrong, but they are also not superpowers China is really the only one close(but they are still dependent on other countries), but that is because they are trying to give their market more freedom(imagine that, they are doing the opposite of what we are doing).

So are you not capable of watching the news on the issues you post about? If you had, you would not need us to tell you that Obama's proposed tax rates are lower than Reagan's. You seem to prefer not to read about this issue at all and instead make claims based on your own prejudice against "Liberals."


And now you can predict the future? Tell me: How do you propose to have the US be a world power if it gets rid of government, which you think is so horrible?

All you need is prejudice against Liberals because the only things they promise that they actually do is increase government. Liberals want more government, everyone to be paid the same, and people should only have some liberties. Did I miss anything?

No I can't, but if things stay the same as they are now then Europe will never grow because when people are dependent on a government they have no desire to grow.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said we need to fully dismantle the government. What I said was that the government is their to protect people's rights, but people should also not be dependent on it.

until he raises them and mark my words" he will."


You failed to provide evidence of raised taxes. You demanded evidence of lowered taxes. I provided it - that's it - it's over.

I don't care about your speculations.


Now tell me something why do you think it's a good thing he is lowering taxes? is it because you just have to defend him or is it because you believe tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if a democrat does them?

I don't have to defend him at all.

You demanded evidence that he'd lowered taxes.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said we need to fully dismantle the government. What I said was that the government is their to protect people's rights, but people should also not be dependent on it.

What you actually said was: "If any of you think Government is a good thing then why dont you test out North Korea..."

The internet is the enemy of revisionism, unfortunately.

President Obama has not made any statements or indicated in any way that he plans on raising anything other than the top marginal tax rates, so that is not very likely.



Under Carter, the lowest and highest tax brackets were taxed at 14 percent and 70 percent for his entire term. Under Clinton, the lowest tax bracket stayed at 15 percent for all eight years and the highest tax bracket rose from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. What records are you basing your claim on?



I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say that President Obama has been very consistent in saying that the troop withdrawal from Iraq would be based on feedback from commanders on the ground in Iraq.



Now that's a strawman if I have ever seen one. No one as far as I can tell has made the argument that tax cuts are only good when under a Democratic Administration.

Ok lets go back to NYC they are raising the taxes and I bet the original governor ran on a platform similar to a republicans and now the state government is driving out the rich. Now Carter was too busy trying to price fix gas and you know how that turned out. As you pointed out Clinton's taxes rose so you proved my point.

Yes, but Obama is not doing what his party elected him to do and that was to pull the troops out of Iraq soon.

That is what everyone is assuming because under Bush when he cut taxes people criticized him of only cutting taxes for the rich and that was considered a bad thing, but now Obama is some hero for cutting taxes. So I can only assume that it is only good when democrats do it because it is such a rare sight.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

What you actually said was: "If any of you think Government is a good thing then why dont you test out North Korea..."

The internet is the enemy of revisionism, unfortunately.

The infringe on people's rights and their people have become severely dependent on it and that was the point I was trying to make. It's not my fault if you took that a different way then I mean.

It's not my fault if you took that a different way then I mean.

You're right, of course. You shouldn't be held accountable for what you say. People should be expected to understand the meaning you intended, rather than the stuff you actually type.

You're right, of course. You shouldn't be held accountable for what you say. People should be expected to understand the meaning you intended, rather than the stuff you actually type.

Actually in that statement I was saying if you want more government then you should look at some examples and that they are examples of Liberal policies and those type's of Government are failures because they infringe on the basic rights on humans and its sad that Liberals are so quick to give up their rights to government when so many in the world are trying to get freedom.

Now the problem is your thinking on the left side of things so you automatically assume that I'm talking about all government because that is all you think about. What I meant is what our government WILL be if Liberals keep getting what they want.

All you need is prejudice against Liberals because the only things they promise that they actually do is increase government. Liberals want more government, everyone to be paid the same, and people should only have some liberties. Did I miss anything?
That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the myriad political philosophies known as liberalism. I applaud you for managing to make a statement that entirely inaccurate.

No I can't, but if things stay the same as they are now then Europe will never grow because when people are dependent on a government they have no desire to grow.
Yes (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/an.html), those (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/au.html#Econ) European (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html#Econ) countries (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html#Econ) do (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html#Econ) not (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html#Econ) have (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/lu.html#Econ) economic (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html#Econ) growth (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html#Econ) whatsoever (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html#Econ) at (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ) all (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ).

Actually in that statement I was saying if you want more government then you should look at some examples and that they are examples of Liberal policies and those type's of Government are failures because they infringe on the basic rights on humans and its sad that Liberals are so quick to give up their rights to government when so many in the world are trying to get freedom.


You think that the despotism of Stalinist Russia, and the despotism in North Korea... are examples of 'liberal' policy?


Now the problem is your thinking on the left side of things so you automatically assume that I'm talking about all government because that is all you think about. What I meant is what our government WILL be if Liberals keep getting what they want.

My thinking on the left side? Didn't you say you weren't assuming I was a liberal, earlier?

No the only things that are Obama's fault is the stimulus and a lot of the spending that is happening.
I see. So you don't blame Congress or the banks or big corporations at all? It's all Obama because he's a "Liberal"?

What about when Bush was president? Whose fault was the spending then -- all his spending on the wars, the record-breaking deficit he racked up, the $750billion no-questions-asked giveaway to the banks? Was Bush a "Liberal" too?

The economy was not his fault because he never did anything as a politician that could cause any problems because all he did was vote present and maybe a couple yay's or nay's.
So...he never did anything but cast votes...the way Senators are supposed to do...

THAT BASTARD!

Ok I stand corrected on recent Democrats raising taxes as president, but if you look at more local areas then I think you will see a very different story and I firmly believe Obama can and will raise taxes when he feels democrats will lose control of congress. The point of these tea parties is that the government is taxing without listening to the people and guess what? The stimulus is not popular at all, nor is the bailout so the majority of people are having to pay for something they don't want and this WILL continue.

All you need is prejudice against Liberals because the only things they promise that they actually do is increase government. Liberals want more government, everyone to be paid the same, and people should only have some liberties. Did I miss anything?
Yes. You missed the part where your first four words in the above post serve to invalidate everything you have to say on this issue and possibly everything you have to say, period. It is the admission of a bigot at worst or a troll at best.

But at the very least, you are not trying to pretend there is any substance to your posts.

That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the myriad political philosophies known as liberalism. I applaud you for managing to make a statement that entirely inaccurate.


Yes (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/an.html), those (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/au.html#Econ) European (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html#Econ) countries (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html#Econ) do (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html#Econ) not (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html#Econ) have (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/lu.html#Econ) economic (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html#Econ) growth (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html#Econ) whatsoever (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html#Econ) at (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ) all (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ).


no it is a true statement and I invite you to look through history. The main excuse for taking away rights is it is for the good of the people. Abolition(it was the excuse then), Smoking taxes, video games and much more. Just because you may not agree with some of those like me does not mean we have the right to choose for other people.


no I did not say Europe does not have economic growth I said that Europe does not have as strong of an economy as we do because the people here work to live instead of whine or beg to the government for money.(people here are self sufficient)

no it is a true statement and I invite you to look through history. The main excuse for taking away rights is it is for the good of the people. Abolition(it was the excuse then), Smoking taxes, video games and much more. Just because you may not agree with some of those like me does not mean we have the right to choose for other people.
Either you said slaveowners were liberals or the abolition of slavery was taking away rights, both of which are patently ridiculous. You also still haven't demonstrated the faintest knowledge of what liberalism means in regards to politics.

no I did not say Europe does not have economic growth I said that Europe does not have as strong of an economy as we do because the people here work to live instead of whine or beg to the government for money.(people here are self sufficient)
Psst. Most of the countries I linked have economies growing far faster than ours. Sorry, man.

people here are self sufficient
Not exactly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Economy#Direct_services)...

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

Yes. You missed the part where your first four words in the above post serve to invalidate everything you have to say on this issue and possibly everything you have to say, period. It is the admission of a bigot at worst or a troll at best.

But at the very least, you are not trying to pretend there is any substance to your posts.

Liberals are simple because they do the same thing over and over again. People say Reagan is outdated, but Obama is pulling a FDR style of presidency. Everything about liberalism is very simple. You have prejudice about conservatives. EVERYONE HAS PREJUDICE. Prove me wrong. You see a fat person on the street thing first few things you assume is they eat too much and/or are lazy. You see a very skinny girl and the first thing you assume is that they are anorexic.

At least my prejudice is based on how Liberals have acted since the beginning of this country and it's been similar up to this point except Liberalism in the past would not protest against a president's war during the time of war openly. They had more respect then that. They never spat on soldiers faces after they came home from a war even if it was not popular. Other then that they have believed Government needs more control in people's lives, it needs to protect people from themselves, and in general the government needs more power. Tell me how Liberalism is different because I would like to know.

Not exactly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Economy#Direct_services)...

they used to be before people became dependent on government. Now people expect handouts from the government.

Ok I stand corrected on recent Democrats raising taxes as president, but if you look at more local areas then I think you will see a very different story and I firmly believe Obama can and will raise taxes when he feels democrats will lose control of congress. The point of these tea parties is that the government is taxing without listening to the people and guess what?
Sorry, man, but the government is listening to the people. It's called the 2008 election. Perhaps you've heard of it, it was a pretty big deal.

The stimulus is not popular at all, nor is the bailout so the majority of people are having to pay for something they don't want and this WILL continue.
The most recent poll I could find places support for the stimulus at 75% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114097/Americans-Support-Stimulus-Major-Changes.aspx). I can't find a single poll on the bailout dating from the Obama administration. This makes sense, what with the bailout occurring under the Bush administration.

Either you said slaveowners were liberals or the abolition of slavery was taking away rights, both of which are patently ridiculous. You also still haven't demonstrated the faintest knowledge of what liberalism means in regards to politics.


Psst. Most of the countries I linked have economies growing far faster than ours. Sorry, man.

Liberalism is basically the increase the government by any means necessary and if that is not it then I would like you to define it.

Based on government, but not it's people. If the government fails then they are screwed. If ours fail then there are at least enough people in this country self sufficient enough to make some kind of profit.

Will any of NS:G's teabaggers be refraining from paying their taxes this year?

Are any of the teparties' organisers suggesting that they do so?

they used to be before people became dependent on government.
So people aren't self-sufficient?

Liberalism is basically the increase the government by any means necessary and if that is not it then I would like you to define it.
'Liberalism' is a vague term for a loose collection of political philosophies that emphasise individuals' liberty and equality.

Unfortunately, the term has been bastardised in modern US politics to mean... something insulting.

Sorry, man, but the government is listening to the people. It's called the 2008 election. Perhaps you've heard of it, it was a pretty big deal.


The most recent poll I could find places support for the stimulus at 75% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114097/Americans-Support-Stimulus-Major-Changes.aspx). I can't find a single poll on the bailout dating from the Obama administration. This makes sense, what with the bailout occurring under the Bush administration.

No it is not. I could pull a democrat and say that he stole the election, but I have more class then that and know he was voted in, but I am hearing of people wishing they didn't vote for Obama but didn't want to vote for McCain because he was no better.

Just to let you know, polls are not the most accurate. Even if they chose same number of conservatives as Liberals how many of them are truly educated in politics based on more then 1 or 2 sources.

Liberalism is basically the increase the government by any means necessary and if that is not it then I would like you to define it.

There are two chief definitions of liberalism. One is more or less synonymous with civil libertarianism, advocating decreased government intervention in the lives of individuals. It takes no position on issues of the economy or social programs. The second, and older definition, refers to civil libertarianism combined with the laissez-faire positions of Adam Smith and his successors.

No it is not. I could pull a democrat and say that he stole the election, but I have more class then that and know he was voted in, but I am hearing of people wishing they didn't vote for Obama but didn't want to vote for McCain because he was no better.
The majority of the people who voted voted for Obama.

Just to let you know, polls are not the most accurate. Even if they chose same number of conservatives as Liberals how many of them are truly educated in politics based on more then 1 or 2 sources.
I don't think you understand how sampling works. Or how the word "most" works.

Some links to help you, Emericanland:

un (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

deux (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)

Will any of NS:G's teabaggers be refraining from paying their taxes this year?

Are any of the teparties' organisers suggesting that they do so?


So people aren't self-sufficient?


'Liberalism' is a vague term for a loose collection of political philosophies that emphasise individuals' liberty and equality.

Unfortunately, the term has been bastardised in modern US politics to mean... something insulting.

Why not because Obama likes appointing people who do not pay their taxes to his cabinet so I guess he is leading by example.

I'm just going off your last statement when you said "not exactly..."

They do not believe in individual liberties. Every time I look I see them taking away some right or working towards taking away a right. The only equality I see liberals wanting is in pay. Otherwise the want to punish white people for having slaves(even though I do not personally know any slave owners). The want to punish men for being evil to women. Equality as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw it is not how Liberals see it. Unless your from an alternate dimension where your definition is correct, you are wrong.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

Some links to help you, Emericanland:

un (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

deux (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)

it'd be nice if those were how liberals actually acted in practice instead of in theory(isn't that like communism, good in theory bad in practice).

Just to let you know, polls are not the most accurate. Even if they chose same number of conservatives as Liberals how many of them are truly educated in politics based on more then 1 or 2 sources.
Polls are actually amazingly accurate, to the point where I think statistics may be a form of magic. Of course, you have to consider what the poll is actually measuring: asking "Do you support the stimulus bill?" really only measures the number of people who prefer the bill to not having a bill, it doesn't take into account the myriad of different opinions that exist.
And having the same number of conservatives as liberals would be silly. If there are fewer of one group overall, having equal numbers wouldn't show how people really think.

Ok lets go back to NYC they are raising the taxes and I bet the original governor ran on a platform similar to a republicans and now the state government is driving out the rich.

New York State is currently facing a $10 billion dollar budget gap. In order to close that gap, the governor and the legislature plan on raising taxes and freezing spending, particularly public school spending which is angering many people in the state. The state government's attempts to balance its budget sounds fiscally responsible to me, although I would not necessarily agree with their methods.

Now Carter was too busy trying to price fix gas and you know how that turned out.

Please provide a source for this alleged price fixing.

As you pointed out Clinton's taxes rose so you proved my point.
There are a number of things I would like to say to this:
1. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised taxes into the upper 30s for the highest earners and cut or froze taxes on lower-income individuals. Bills that increase and cut taxes are generally not as black and white as you believe they are.
2. If you want to prove your point, which is that liberals promise not to increase taxes but do so later on, then you need to provide evidence for that. The fact that Clinton raised taxes, by itself, does not support your point.

Yes, but Obama is not doing what his party elected him to do and that was to pull the troops out of Iraq soon.

Once again, President Obama has been consistent about modifying his Iraq withdrawal plan based on the recommendations of the military officers. The recent bombings in Iraq suggest that it might be wise to withdraw combat troops at a much slower pace in order to preserve stability.

That is what everyone is assuming because under Bush when he cut taxes people criticized him of only cutting taxes for the rich and that was considered a bad thing, but now Obama is some hero for cutting taxes. So I can only assume that it is only good when democrats do it because it is such a rare sight.

It is unreasonable and irrational to make such broad claims about an entire group of people. The members of the Democratic Party, much less members of the ideological left, are not monolithic in their opinions. Paul Krugman's criticisms of Obama's tax cuts and stimulus policy are proof of that.

Liberals are simple because they do the same thing over and over again.
Cheap troll dodge in lieu of argument.

People say Reagan is outdated, but Obama is pulling a FDR style of presidency.
Unoriginal (and stale) talking point in lieu of argument.

Everything about liberalism is very simple.
No, only the BS you make up about it.

You have prejudice about conservatives.
Mindreading now?

EVERYONE HAS PREJUDICE.
Cheap troll dodge in lieu of argument.

Prove me wrong.
Why should I duplicate work you have already done?

You see a fat person on the street thing first few things you assume is they eat too much and/or are lazy. You see a very skinny girl and the first thing you assume is that they are anorexic.
More mind reading. He's the Amazing Kreskin!! :eek:

http://larsumlaut.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/kreskin.jpg

At least my prejudice is based on how Liberals have acted since the beginning of this country and it's been similar up to this point except Liberalism in the past would not protest against a president's war during the time of war openly. They had more respect then that. They never spat on soldiers faces after they came home from a war even if it was not popular. Other then that they have believed Government needs more control in people's lives, it needs to protect people from themselves, and in general the government needs more power. Tell me how Liberalism is different because I would like to know.
Tell you how Liberalism is different from all the things you just said it wasn't like and didn't do? Don't you already know that?

And no, I'm not going to dance to your "Defend Liberalism" tune. If CF wants to waste his time trying to connect you to reality on this, that's his bad trip. From what I've seen so far, "Liberal" is nothing more than a knee-jerk negative label you like to throw around and slap onto anything or anyone you don't like -- the way you slapped it onto Obama without actually enumerating his liberal stances, or showing that he actually is doing any of the things you have accused him of, nor showing that those things are inherently "liberal" things. When challenged to defend or back up your remarks about Obama, you instead try to twist this debate into a lecture about the evils of Liberalism delivered by Professor You.

In other words, a cheap dodge in lieu of argument.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

There are two chief definitions of liberalism. One is more or less synonymous with civil libertarianism, advocating decreased government intervention in the lives of individuals. It takes no position on issues of the economy or social programs. The second, and older definition, refers to civil libertarianism combined with the laissez-faire positions of Adam Smith and his successors.

Look at it in practice. Every time liberals become president the government INCREASES. Why do liberals want to ban smoking if they want less government involvement in people's lives? I think your thinking of Conservatism. Nice try though.

Polls are actually amazingly accurate, to the point where I think statistics may be a form of magic. Of course, you have to consider what the poll is actually measuring: asking "Do you support the stimulus bill?" really only measures the number of people who prefer the bill to not having a bill, it doesn't take into account the myriad of different opinions that exist.
And having the same number of conservatives as liberals would be silly. If there are fewer of one group overall, having equal numbers wouldn't show how people really think.

If the people polling are unbiased which is impossible because everyone is biased.

Look at it in practice. Every time liberals become president the government INCREASES. Why do liberals want to ban smoking if they want less government involvement in people's lives? I think your thinking of Conservatism. Nice try though.
By this logic, every president since FDR has been liberal.

On a side note, has anyone noticed that there is just a one-letter difference between "liberal" and "libel?" I mean, not really, but I'm sure the falseness of that fact won't prevent it from being used as an argument.

They do not believe in individual liberties. Every time I look I see them taking away some right or working towards taking away a right. The only equality I see liberals wanting is in pay. Otherwise the want to punish white people for having slaves(even though I do not personally know any slave owners). The want to punish men for being evil to women. Equality as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw it is not how Liberals see it.
Which people are you talking about when you say "I see liberals" (it sounds as if you mean 'Democrats')?

Because if you were to ask me to point to some liberals in US politics, I'd point to a large amount of Republicans and Democrats.

If the people polling are unbiased which is impossible because everyone is biased.

That's why you have to look at the question.

[idle wondering]At what point will Emericanland's constant reposting of that "enter button" graphic become considered image spam?[/idle wondering]

What the heck, let me throw this out there ...

My friend Bob Dole is fond of Robert Frost's observation that a liberal is someone who won't "take his own side in a quarrel." I will. I believe that the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few. Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives.

We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams. As my friend and sometime debating partner William F. Buckley puts it in his book Up from Liberalism,

Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgment that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before.
The business of conservatives is, in other words, to cling tightly to the past, and although such a stance can be admirable, a stale and musty doctrine is of little use at a time when the nation needs not to fear the future but to seek out ways to improve it.

I'd link to this but I can't find it on the Internet.

Liberalism is basically the increase the government by any means necessary and if that is not it then I would like you to define it.

Why not just use a dictionary? :confused:

New York State is currently facing a $10 billion dollar budget gap. In order to close that gap, the governor and the legislature plan on raising taxes and freezing spending, particularly public school spending which is angering many people in the state. The state government's attempts to balance its budget sounds fiscally responsible to me, although I would not necessarily agree with their methods.



Please provide a source for this alleged price fixing.


There are a number of things I would like to say to this:
1. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised taxes into the upper 30s for the highest earners and cut or froze taxes on lower-income individuals. Bills that increase and cut taxes are generally not as black and white as you believe they are.
2. If you want to prove your point, which is that liberals promise not to increase taxes but do so later on, then you need to provide evidence for that. The fact that Clinton raised taxes, by itself, does not support your point.



Once again, President Obama has been consistent about modifying his Iraq withdrawal plan based on the recommendations of the military officers. The recent bombings in Iraq suggest that it might be wise to withdraw combat troops at a much slower pace in order to preserve stability.



It is unreasonable and irrational to make such broad claims about an entire group of people. The members of the Democratic Party, much less members of the ideological left, are not monolithic in their opinions. Paul Krugman's criticisms of Obama's tax cuts and stimulus policy are proof of that.

By driving out the rich they plan to balance their budget? nice plan.

I stand corrected Nixon fixed the prices.

A raise of taxes on the rich is a raise on everyone. Who creates the jobs in any economy? People with money.

Yes, but Obama lied to the people who voted for him. He is not the perfect god(or w/e liberals see him as) as portrayed.

Yes, but democrats have done that to Conservatives so why can't I do the same. What your saying is not only against what your party has done, but it is impossible to account for everyone's opinion so that is why their is generalization which is a for of prejudice that everyone uses.

Why not just use a dictionary? :confused:

Oh sure, from the Marx-Webster Dictionar...oh wait, it's Merriam, Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I was wondering about that.

Cheap troll dodge in lieu of argument.


Unoriginal (and stale) talking point in lieu of argument.


No, only the BS you make up about it.


Mindreading now?


Cheap troll dodge in lieu of argument.


Why should I duplicate work you have already done?


More mind reading. He's the Amazing Kreskin!! :eek:

http://larsumlaut.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/kreskin.jpg


Tell you how Liberalism is different from all the things you just said it wasn't like and didn't do? Don't you already know that?

And no, I'm not going to dance to your "Defend Liberalism" tune. If CF wants to waste his time trying to connect you to reality on this, that's his bad trip. From what I've seen so far, "Liberal" is nothing more than a knee-jerk negative label you like to throw around and slap onto anything or anyone you don't like -- the way you slapped it onto Obama without actually enumerating his liberal stances, or showing that he actually is doing any of the things you have accused him of, nor showing that those things are inherently "liberal" things. When challenged to defend or back up your remarks about Obama, you instead try to twist this debate into a lecture about the evils of Liberalism delivered by Professor You.

In other words, a cheap dodge in lieu of argument.

I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.

What the heck, let me throw this out there ...



I'd link to this but I can't find it on the Internet.
Damn, I wish we still had pols who could talk/write like that. Thanks.

I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less
I don't think people are confused about that, they just don't see the federal government spending money as an inherent evil. To quote Homer Simpson, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

[QUOTE=Emericanland;14708511]I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.

Actually you are more right than you know. Liberalism is a mental disease/disorder. They cannot help themselves... hmmmm :p

They do not believe in individual liberties. Every time I look I see them taking away some right or working towards taking away a right. The only equality I see liberals wanting is in pay. Otherwise the want to punish white people for having slaves(even though I do not personally know any slave owners). The want to punish men for being evil to women. Equality as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw it is not how Liberals see it. Unless your from an alternate dimension where your definition is correct, you are wrong.

I find this amusing as the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s were driven to an extensive degree by the country's liberals and moderates. If I recall correctly, the conservative talking point about liberal activist judges arose because of the Warren Court and the Burger Court were allegedly "creating" rights such as the right to privacy and the rights of people in police custody. See Griswold v. Connecticut and Miranda v. Arizona.

If you want this point to be taken seriously, you need to provide some concrete examples of specific rights liberals have either taken away or are actively seeking to take away.

I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.
More mindreading followed up with a flame, and all in lieu of an argument. Well done, you'll go far. Too bad, though, that you failed to actually back up any of your assertions of fact or defend the reasoning of any of your conclusions. Not surprising, but still...rather sad.

>.>

<.<

Shut u... *gets shot*

*sigh*

What happened to that bulletproof vest I gave you?

Did you call for such protests? Did you try to organize such protests? Or did it never even occur to you then?

Ever heard of the PATRIOT Act?

Why not because Obama likes appointing people who do not pay their taxes to his cabinet so I guess he is leading by example.

I'm just going off your last statement when you said "not exactly..."

They do not believe in individual liberties. Every time I look I see them taking away some right or working towards taking away a right. The only equality I see liberals wanting is in pay. Otherwise the want to punish white people for having slaves(even though I do not personally know any slave owners). The want to punish men for being evil to women. Equality as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw it is not how Liberals see it. Unless your from an alternate dimension where your definition is correct, you are wrong.

Yeah, liberals do not believe in individual liberties. That's why it's conservatives that support such things as gay marriage rights but liberals do not. It's why it was conservatives that wanted to end slavery and later segregation, but liberals wanted to keep them.

Oh, wait...

[idle wondering]At what point will Emericanland's constant reposting of that "enter button" graphic become considered image spam?[/idle wondering]

Yeah. I've been wondering about that...

Ever heard of the PATRIOT Act?
That was YOUR idea??? :mad:

In short here is what I believe because I can't keep a good debate going when it is against more then one person and some of them are wasting my time and not even listening. If you wish to debate me more I would be glad to just send me an email at caseybiemiller@gmail.com and I will try and send a fact filled email back to prove my point, but I can't do that here because I'm trying to reply to everyone.

1.Liberalism is based off the belief that the individual needs protecting and it will even goes as far as getting rid of rights to do so(the whole gun debate is the best one). Liberals also believe that if a person fails then someone who is succeeding should support them because they are rich they can afford it right? They also believe since white males have been evil in the past they need to be punished.
Conservatives believe it is up to the individual whether the succeed or fail and the government is only there to safeguard there rights as long as there rights do not infringe on another.

2. Spending in large amounts has never worked for a country in the past for 3 reasons. Taxes, Inflation, and/or debt.

3.Obama is not the perfect being he is made out to be and he is playing everyone for fools who believe he is there to benefit America. How does trying to silence your opposition help America. The back and forth of parties has kept this form of government lasting longer then any of the others, but if the founders were seeing what is happening they would feel that we are blindly giving up our rights that they fought so hard to get.

That was YOUR idea??? :mad:

No, LOL. I meant that I would have never started a protest myself. I don't want to end up on anyone's list. If someone else wanted to start a protest and risk being labelled "subversive," then I would join their protest...I just wouldn't lead it, and I would maintain strict anonymity.

I think you forgot how to use this:
http://www.piotrpix.com/files/images/Keyboard%20Enter%20Key_0.preview.JPG

[QUOTE=Emericanland;14708511]I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.

Actually you are more right than you know. Liberalism is a mental disease/disorder. They cannot help themselves... hmmmm :p
I know I'm just trying to help the symptoms

Snip



A raise of taxes on the rich is a raise on everyone. Who creates the jobs in any economy? People with money.



Snip

Actually the lower classes drive the economy now not the rich. The rich may invest in new enterprises but as we have seen all this does is lead to bubble economies that burst and screw us over. Rather we should give money to the bottom and allow them to purchase goods and services that will actually provide additional jobs as the more they spend the more people need to be there to give service. Investments are useless unless the mass of people are able to afford mass produced goods. If the Rich were greater in number or bought goods and services at a much higher rate I might agree with you. As it stands you regurgitate nonsense that didn't make much sense when put forth by a president suffering from Alzheimers.

Yeah, liberals do not believe in individual liberties. That's why it's conservatives that support such things as gay marriage rights but liberals do not. It's why it was conservatives that wanted to end slavery and later segregation, but liberals wanted to keep them.

Oh, wait...



Yeah. I've been wondering about that...

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln. unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.

Snip



Snip

Actually the lower classes drive the economy now not the rich. The rich may invest in new enterprises but as we have seen all this does is lead to bubble economies that burst and screw us over. Rather we should give money to the bottom and allow them to purchase goods and services that will actually provide additional jobs as the more they spend the more people need to be there to give service. Investments are useless unless the mass of people are able to afford mass produced goods. If the Rich were greater in number or bought goods and services at a much higher rate I might agree with you. As it stands you regurgitate nonsense that didn't make much sense when put forth by a president suffering from Alzheimers.

wow nice personal attack on Reagan. I love it when liberal colors fly because it shows who you truly are deep down. Who pays the lower class?

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln. unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.

non sequiter....not all liberals in history are democrats, not all conservatives in history are republicans.

No, LOL. I meant that I would have never started a protest myself. I don't want to end up on anyone's list. If someone else wanted to start a protest and risk being labelled "subversive," then I would join their protest...I just wouldn't lead it, and I would maintain strict anonymity.
Oh, so the answer to my question was, "No, you neither called for nor organized any protests during Bush's years" and your excuse for that is that you were a-scared. Of course, there were thousands of others who were not scared -- who staged various protests against the wars, for instance, but oh, well. The bottom line remains that you never protested against Bush.

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln. unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.

To be fair, the Democratic Party back then was nothing like it is now. The vast majority of racist Democrats have defected to the GOP, especially since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed.

wow nice personal attack on Reagan. I love it when liberal colors fly because it shows who you truly are deep down. Who pays the lower class?

If I own a business then in order to grow I need to higher more people. I do this with the profits of the business I run. As long as every business that provides the same service is taxed equally then I grow or shrink based on my abilities. If I pay my employees fairly(not walmart) and work hard then I capture market share.

No, LOL. I meant that I would have never started a protest myself.

So the only reason you're interestd in Tea Party activism, is because someoene else is doing all the work?

Oh, so the answer to my question was, "No, you neither called for nor organized any protests during Bush's years" and your excuse for that is that you were a-scared. Of course, there were thousands of others who were not scared -- who staged various protests against the wars, for instance, but oh, well. The bottom line remains that you never protested against Bush.

I never started a protest against anyone. Nor do I ever plan to. I just attend them. Had there been any anti-Bush protests where I live, I'd have attended them.

So the only reason you're interestd in Tea Party activism, is because someoene else is doing all the work?

I don't mind joining protests, but I do mind starting them. I don't want to be labelled as an "extremist" or a "terrorist" by the government.

I don't mind joining protests, but I do mind starting them. I don't want to be labelled as an "extremist" or a "terrorist" by the government.

Nice to know your ideals only apply as long as they don't inconvenience you.

Nice to know your ideals only apply as long as they don't inconvenience you.

Being persecuted is a lot worse than a mere "inconvenience."

I don't mind joining protests, but I do mind starting them. I don't want to be labelled as an "extremist" or a "terrorist" by the government.

A little naive? You honestly think that - if the government saw you at a protest, and wanted to know who you were, they couldn't find out?

If you're going to be tagged as an extremist, attendance might be enough.

I take it, though, that this means you don't volunteer contributions to any movements, and aren't an active member of... well, anything.

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln.

And?


unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.
Well, it's not quite that simple, but yeah. Do you know why the south is so strongly Republican these days? It's because a Democratic president signed the Civil Rights Act, and racist southerners couldn't deal with "them damn n*******s" being equal.

If I own a business then in order to grow I need to higher more people. I do this with the profits of the business I run. As long as every business that provides the same service is taxed equally then I grow or shrink based on my abilities. If I pay my employees fairly(not walmart) and work hard then I capture market share.

exactly and small business owners report their business as their own income so they end up being considered rich.

Being persecuted is a lot worse than a mere "inconvenience."

Unless you're a gay black communist atheist, your claims to 'persecution' are as laughable as your 'slavery' nonsense.

A little naive? You honestly think that - if the government saw you at a protest, and wanted to know who you were, they couldn't find out?

If you're going to be tagged as an extremist, attendance might be enough.

I take it, though, that this means you don't volunteer contributions to any movements, and aren't an active member of... well, anything.

I'm not. What's the point? I don't plan on staying here forever.

wow nice personal attack on Reagan. I love it when liberal colors fly because it shows who you truly are deep down. Who pays the lower class?
Allow me to intervene in this squabble.

The truth of the matter is that both the upper and the middle/working classes play important roles in the economy.

Without brokers and individuals making investments, there would be no capital to sustain companies.

However, without the workers who create the products and deliver the services the companies sell, business would not exist.

Therefore, the topic here should not be which group is the true center of the economy. Rather, the focus should be on why one group should reap all the benefits of economic activity, while the other must make due with substandard living conditions despite their vital contribution to society.

The necessary role that both groups play in the country should not necessarily be rewarded in the same manner monetarily. However, there is simply no excuse for an inequality in access to human needs -- 2nd tier human rights -- between the two groups. Thus, why we need economic policies that guarantee such needs to all individuals, such as health care, education, food, etc.

Unless you're a gay black communist atheist, your claims to 'persecution' are as laughable as your 'slavery' nonsense.

Never hurts to be careful.

It's because a Democratic president signed the Civil Rights Act, and racist southerners couldn't deal with "them damn n*******s" being equal.

Now your following me(the evil conservative) into the life of prejudice because your assuming it was only the southerner's who were racist and they all went to the Republican party. These days their is a 2 way racism street, but people still only see it as a one way dirt road(essentially they see it as no improvements have been made when it is obvious there has been).

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln. unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.

Actually, swapping sides on the political spectrum is exactly what happened with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Republicans of Lincoln's day were radical liberals, who wanted to take away people's legally acquired property (slaves), who actually used military force to override states rights, who removed the political rights of politicians until they signed loyalty oaths. The Republican Party's high point in the 20th century was probably Theordore Roosevelt - trust-buster, conservationist, populist. TR would probably be called a RINO and drummed out of the GOP today.

Allow me to intervene in this squabble.

The truth of the matter is that both the upper and the middle/working classes play important roles in the economy.

...
The necessary role that both groups play in the country should not necessarily be rewarded in the same manner monetarily. However, there is simply no excuse for an inequality in access to human needs -- 2nd tier human rights -- between the two groups. Thus, why we need economic policies that guarantee such needs to all individuals, such as health care, education, food, etc.

Yes this is true.


The problem with said healthcare is that they should earn it and not be given
it. Otherwise someone will have to pay it and it generally ends up being the rich/ middle class who pays most of it. I agree that the government needs to help people on their feet, but only if those people are trying to get back up otherwise everyone loses money.

Actually, swapping sides on the political spectrum is exactly what happened with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Republicans of Lincoln's day were radical liberals, who wanted to take away people's legally acquired property (slaves), who actually used military force to override states rights, who removed the political rights of politicians until they signed loyalty oaths. The Republican Party's high point in the 20th century was probably Theordore Roosevelt - trust-buster, conservationist, populist. TR would probably be called a RINO and drummed out of the GOP today.

And imperialist, racist, mass murderer (*cough* Philippines *cough*), ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian (he once said that he did "not see any problem" with concentrating power into one man's hands).

Also, the original GOP was hardly liberal. They didn't oppose slavery per se; they opposed the extension of slavery into the territories (they wanted to keep blacks out). Lincoln even wanted to deport all blacks to Liberia, Central America, etc. Both parties were extremely racist.

And imperialist, racist, mass murderer (*cough* Philippines *cough*), ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian (he once said that he did "not see any problem" with concentrating power into one man's hands).

Also, the original GOP was hardly liberal. They didn't oppose slavery per se; they opposed the extension of slavery into the territories (they wanted to keep blacks out). Lincoln even wanted to deport all blacks to Liberia, Central America, etc. Both parties were extremely racist.

eh You could call Truman a mass murderer of japanese and besides no president is perfect.

Racism was a more widespread thing back then and racism was not a part line issue. It never was and never will be. The problem is Democrats make it a party line issue because it's one of the few ways they can get votes.

And imperialist, racist, mass murderer (*cough* Philippines *cough*), ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian (he once said that he did "not see any problem" with concentrating power into one man's hands).

Also, the original GOP was hardly liberal. They didn't oppose slavery per se; they opposed the extension of slavery into the territories (they wanted to keep blacks out). Lincoln even wanted to deport all blacks to Liberia, Central America, etc. Both parties were extremely racist.

I never said TR was perfect, but he was a damned sight more liberal than, say, Reagan *cough*Air Traffic Controller's union*cough*.

And on the 19th century political spectrum, the Republicans were well to the left of the Democrats. The GOP wanted to end slavery in the US, regardless of what they thought about blacks as people. That was a left-wing position. They radically increased the government (Emericanland's primary mark of the Liberal). They severely restricted the rights of an entire section of the country.

As someone up there said, it's a complicated question, but Emericanland seems more interested in flat statements, so I offered him one.

The problem with said healthcare is that they should earn it and not be given
it. Otherwise someone will have to pay it and it generally ends up being the rich/ middle class who pays most of it. I agree that the government needs to help people on their feet, but only if those people are trying to get back up otherwise everyone loses money.
You misunderstand my point. People who cannot afford basic needs such as healthcare, but put in a 40+ hour work week have already earned it. The role that middle and working class people play in the economy is just as vital as the role that the upper classes play; without them, businesses would have no products, or services, or customers to purchase both. Therefore, in a situation where private industry fails to reward such people for the vital services they provide to the economy, the government must step in to make sure that justice is served, and that they see their basic human needs met.

It is against any measure of justice and humanity to allow one class in society to lack access to basic human needs, such as health care, despite the vital role they play in a society. Therefore, there is an imperative in making sure this does not occur, which naturally falls to government to enforce.

And contrary to what you say, "everyone" does not lose money in situaton with government-funded entitlements, such as health care. Indeed, taxes that fund health care benefit everyone, as everyone is entitled to such publicly-funded health benefits.

The president of the confederate states was a democrat. The republican party started with lincoln. unless your saying they swapped side on the political spectrum there I think your statement is not 100% right besides racism was/is not a party issues so much as it is people need to get over themselves.

This is an example of dramatic irony. The reader, of course, is aware that the political leanings of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party reversed in the mid 1960s. Our "patsy", for lack of a better word*, was unaware of this fact, and unwittingly posited it as a ridiculous circumstance.

*There's a better word for it, but I can't remember. Unfortunately, patsy has a rather derogatory connotation, and I must note that I use the word against my better judgment.

eh You could call Truman a mass murderer of japanese and besides no president is perfect.

Almost all, if not all, Presidents were mass murderers.

I never said TR was perfect, but he was a damned sight more liberal than, say, Reagan *cough*Air Traffic Controller's union*cough*.

And on the 19th century political spectrum, the Republicans were well to the left of the Democrats. The GOP wanted to end slavery in the US, regardless of what they thought about blacks as people. That was a left-wing position. They radically increased the government (Emericanland's primary mark of the Liberal). They severely restricted the rights of an entire section of the country.

The Republicans did not want to end slavery. They wanted to end the extension of slavery (which is a good thing, but not as good as the former).

This is an example of dramatic irony. The reader, of course, is aware that the political leanings of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party reversed in the mid 1960s. Our "patsy", for lack of a better word*, was unaware of this fact, and unwittingly posited it as a ridiculous circumstance.

Before then, actually. A lot of Republicans opposed the New Deal, and pro-civil rights sentiment manifested itself in the Democratic Party as early as the late 1940s, with such people as Hubert Humphrey.

Being persecuted is a lot worse than a mere "inconvenience."

Inconvenience the verb is not the same as inconvenience the noun.

Inconvenience the verb is not the same as inconvenience the noun.

I know.

I don't mind joining protests, but I do mind starting them. I don't want to be labelled as an "extremist" or a "terrorist" by the government.
"A timorous foe and a suspicious friend"

"A timorous foe and a suspicious friend"

:confused:

:confused:
From "The Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot" by Alexander Pope, in the section in which he lambasts the playwrite Joseph Addison (in the verses that gave us the expression "to damn with faint praise" meaning to talk somebody down without actually saying anything directly bad about them, something Addison was notorious for). Among many, many faults (Pope and Addison were feuding over a professional disagreement), Pope describes Addison as:

"Alike reserved to blame or to commend,
A timorous foe and a suspicious friend"

Meaning that he was so loathe to commit to an opinion or position, either for or against anything, so unwilling to put himself on the line either way, that he was a coward in a fight and totally untrustworthy as an ally. Nobody had anything to fear from him, but nobody could rely on him for anything, either.

Your attitude of "Oh, I'll go along, if someone else does all the work and no blowback for my 'principles' will ever come back at me" is a laughable example of a similar outlook. You are perfectly willing to take the credit for standing up for something, just so long as you carry none of the burden and run none of the risk. You leave it to other people -- never you -- to run all the risk of being "branded" as believing in whatever it is. You want to be able to brag about your dedicated stances in some crowds and deny all connection to them in others. Yeah, a person like you is someone I would just love to have standing by me in the picket line. /sarcasm. Very Addison-esque.

By the way, in case this is too obscure, Pope was not complimenting Addison, and I am not complimenting you.

Source. (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4764) Yes, I know most here won't like it and this will probably result in me being flamed. Nonetheless...
There’s good news and bad news about yesterday. First, the bad news is that many establishment Republicans insinuated themselves into various prominent tea parties in order to position themselves to profit politically from the rapidly growing ranks of tea party participants and sympathizers. However, a replay of the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 in reaction to the liberal partisanship of Bill Clinton is not what’s needed today. That Republican takeover of Congress did not halt either the centralization of power in Washington or the deficit spending.

Now for the good news. Certainly many, and hopefully most of the tea party participants understand that our nation’s political and economic problems are not due exclusively to either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, many major tea party organizers explicitly prohibited politicians of either party from speaking at their rallies. Also, the tea party movement represents a further development of social networking on the Internet. First, we had the Howard Dean Meetup phenomenon in 2004. Next, we had the very extensive use of Meetup, Facebook and other Internet websites in the Ron Paul and Barack Obama campaigns of 2007-8. Now, already in early 2009 we see the emergence of Twitter as an important factor in the tea party movement. One of the originators of the national Tax Day Tea Party movement was Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT).

Maybe this Tea party thing will lead to the libertarians rise to power. That would be good.

Maybe this Tea party thing will lead to the libertarians rise to power. That would be good.

They are shooting for further tea parties on the 4th apparently.

Gerry Celente reckons that there will be a credible third party movement by 2012. Stuffs to ponder.

They are shooting for further tea parties on the 4th apparently.

Gerry Celente reckons that there will be a credible third party movement by 2012. Stuffs to ponder.

If the libertarians combine with the constitutional party they could steal a fair segment from the libertarian leaning in both the republican and democratic parties. Though I think most people who cry for a 3rd party here would not be happy with that.
Never mind joining with the constitutional party they are just ultra republicans.

IMHO, most Dems and Pubbies only look at the surface of politicians bearing the respective party labels. If they were to look deeper at their voting records and primary funding sources, they would abandon most of the major party candidates.

*edit* but it does no good to 'Vote the bums out' if the replacement is just another bum in a different color coat. The two-party system makes it much too hard to make a serious chance in the overall fabric of government. We need several parties and serious nonpartisan independent candidates, along with more voters willing to break their bad habits of looking at labels.

Gerry Celente reckons that there will be a credible third party movement by 2012. Stuffs to ponder.
That late? :(

I was hoping they'd be a significant movement by midterms, so that the Dems can solidify an indisputable filibuster-proof mandate.

IMHO, most Dems and Pubbies only look at the surface of politicians bearing the respective party labels. If they were to look deeper at their voting records and primary funding sources, they would abandon most of the major party candidates.

*edit* but it does no good to 'Vote the bums out' if the replacement is just another bum in a different color coat. The two-party system makes it much too hard to make a serious chance in the overall fabric of government. We need several parties and serious nonpartisan independent candidates, along with more voters willing to break their bad habits of looking at labels.
You're much closer to being right with your second paragraph. Most people I know, of either party, are pretty disgusted with their options most of the time. They just recognize that there aren't any OTHER options, so it's always the lesser of the evils that gets their votes.

Bush tried being bipartisan.

Really, name one instance where he was willing to compromise on a major issue.

Bush's bipartisanship is the same as the GOP's current 'efforts' at it: Do it my way or you're unamerican.

Ok lets go back to NYC they are raising the taxes and I bet the original governor...

NYC (New York City) doesn't have a governor, they have a mayor. NYS (New York State) has a governor. NYC ≠ NYS

They are shooting for further tea parties on the 4th apparently.

Gerry Celente reckons that there will be a credible third party movement by 2012. Stuffs to ponder.

Based on what? Libertarians will get pissed about right-wing nut jobs stealing their ideas and break off into their own party? If he is thinking these tea parties arn't being held by your standard old, Republican, white people who are doing it because right-wing talking heads thought it up, then he is sorely mistaken. Oh nm, Celente is one of the right-wing talking head buddies so he too is bullshitting this to look like a movement when it is nothing but a congregation of talk radio audiences.

What about when Bush was president? Whose fault was the spending then -- all his spending on the wars, the record-breaking deficit he racked up, the $750billion no-questions-asked giveaway to the banks? Was Bush a "Liberal" too?

No, obviously that was the fault of the liberals in congress.

Based on what? Libertarians will get pissed about right-wing nut jobs stealing their ideas and break off into their own party? If he is thinking these tea parties arn't being held by your standard old, Republican, white people who are doing it because right-wing talking heads thought it up, then he is sorely mistaken. Oh nm, Celente is one of the right-wing talking head buddies so he too is bullshitting this to look like a movement when it is nothing but a congregation of talk radio audiences.

Wouldn't be the first time the old republicans start something that it grows until they can't control it and it turns around and bites them in the ass.

wow nice personal attack on Reagan. I love it when liberal colors fly because it shows who you truly are deep down. Who pays the lower class?

Reagan did have Alzheimer's, how is that an attack?

Reagan did have Alzheimer's, how is that an attack?
He also committed treason, yet for some reason we're not supposed to talk about that. My best guess is that Republicans are worried that the Ghost Of St. Ronny may be looking down on us still, and they fear his mighty wrath.

I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.

Bye then.

Based on what? Libertarians will get pissed about right-wing nut jobs stealing their ideas and break off into their own party? If he is thinking these tea parties arn't being held by your standard old, Republican, white people who are doing it because right-wing talking heads thought it up, then he is sorely mistaken. Oh nm, Celente is one of the right-wing talking head buddies so he too is bullshitting this to look like a movement when it is nothing but a congregation of talk radio audiences.
Hey buddy, talk radio audiences vote. They led to the downfall of that awful amnesty bill that Bush (D-Texas) was pushing toward the end of his term. Don't ever minimize the effect that voting constituents can have on their representatives.

I have noticed you guys have a misguided idea that Liberalism wants less government because in practice Liberalism wants more and Conservatism wants less, Socialized medicine anyone? On the other points I'm not going to argue because you're not listening and at this point I have realized why people like being Liberal. There are 2 main reasons: They are lazy and/or they are misguided on the definition of Liberalism.

Por qué no te callas?

Por qué no te callas?

Isn't that what the King of Spain said to Hugo Chavez?

Isn't that what the King of Spain said to Hugo Chavez?

I'm trying for Best King Juan Carlos Impression award. :D

I sill don't understand about this tea-party businees.

Based on what? Libertarians will get pissed about right-wing nut jobs stealing their ideas and break off into their own party? If he is thinking these tea parties arn't being held by your standard old, Republican, white people who are doing it because right-wing talking heads thought it up, then he is sorely mistaken. Oh nm, Celente is one of the right-wing talking head buddies so he too is bullshitting this to look like a movement when it is nothing but a congregation of talk radio audiences.

You have no idea who he is, do you?

Anyway, it would be based on populism.

I sill don't understand about this tea-party businees.

In 1773, IIRC, some Colonials boarded an English merchant ship in Boston Harbor and threw overboard boxes of tea in protest of the recent tax that Parliament had imposed on tea and various other goods imported into the Colonies. In the US this "Boston Tea Party" is considered one of the first acts in the move toward independence. The Americans were dressed as Indians, by the way, not festooned with tea bags as the people who tried to emulate them were on the 15th.

In 1773, IIRC, some Colonials boarded an English merchant ship in Boston Harbor and threw overboard boxes of tea in protest of the recent tax that Parliament had imposed on tea and various other goods imported into the Colonies. In the US this "Boston Tea Party" is considered one of the first acts in the move toward independence. The Americans were dressed as Indians, by the way, not festooned with tea bags as the people who tried to emulate them were on the 15th.

Back in those days, there were no such thing as teabags. To look stupid while claiming to be politically serious, they had to dress up in some idiot's notion of an Indian costume. Also, they were drunk.

Back in those days, there were no such thing as teabags. To look stupid while claiming to be politically serious, they had to dress up in some idiot's notion of an Indian costume. Also, they were drunk.
its good to know that some traditions live on in america.

I sill don't understand about this tea-party businees.

Depends on who you ask.
Many people against increased government spending.
Others against the Bailouts.
others made that the bailouts had so little oversight.
Still others want to avoid taxes.

Back in those days, there were no such thing as teabags. To look stupid while claiming to be politically serious, they had to dress up in some idiot's notion of an Indian costume. Also, they were drunk.

:eek: No tea bags?!?!?? But ... but ... :p

its good to know that some traditions live on in america.

And the descendants of those parties in 1773 (I saw a sign at the rally here in Denver that said "Party Like It's 1773") are probably the people who decorate stop signs and plate glass windows with bullet holes.

Depends on who you ask.
Many people against increased government spending.
Others against the Bailouts.
others made that the bailouts had so little oversight.
Still others want to avoid taxes.

You forgot "Politicians whose party was driven out of power in the last election desperately seeking an issue on which to campaign."

I was told the idea for this go around came from a Canadian. Go figure. This could be the biggest practical joke since they burned down the whitehouse.

:eek: No tea bags?!?!?? But ... but ... :p



And the descendants of those parties in 1773 (I saw a sign at the rally here in Denver that said "Party Like It's 1773") are probably the people who decorate stop signs and plate glass windows with bullet holes.
only while drunk.

I was told the idea for this go around came from a Canadian. Go figure. This could be the biggest practical joke since they burned down the whitehouse.
Mystery solved. /thread. :D

This thread quickly devolved into the most mind numbingly one sided 'debate' Ive ever seen.

This thread quickly devolved into the most mind numbingly one sided 'debate' Ive ever seen.

How about evolution and homosexuality threads?

In 1773, IIRC, some Colonials boarded an English merchant ship in Boston Harbor and threw overboard boxes of tea in protest of the recent tax that Parliament had imposed on tea and various other goods imported into the Colonies. In the US this "Boston Tea Party" is considered one of the first acts in the move toward independence. The Americans were dressed as Indians, by the way, not festooned with tea bags as the people who tried to emulate them were on the 15th.

I know about the Boston Tea-Party, I just don't see the link.

I know about the Boston Tea-Party, I just don't see the link.

No taxation without representation, basically.

No taxation without representation, basically.

Most importantly, the 'no taxation' part.

I saw signs at the one near me that read "Taxation WITH Representation isn't that great, either" (or words very close to that).

The irony that most of these demonstratiions were held on publically funded property, and protected by publically funded security, is apparently lost on most of those waving those placards.

Most importantly, the 'no taxation' part.

I saw signs at the one near me that read "Taxation WITH Representation isn't that great, either" (or words very close to that).

The irony that most of these demonstratiions were held on publically funded property, and protected by publically funded security, is apparently lost on most of those waving those placards.

The fact that they decided to hold these anti-tax protests immediately following one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country was also somewhat ironic.

The fact that they decided to hold these anti-tax protests immediately following one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country was also somewhat ironic.

Irony. It doesn't just mean 'tastes like metal'.

Most importantly, the 'no taxation' part.

I saw signs at the one near me that read "Taxation WITH Representation isn't that great, either" (or words very close to that).

The irony that most of these demonstratiions were held on publically funded property, and protected by publically funded security, is apparently lost on most of those waving those placards.

Dude, there is no way you are DK. You actually talk sense.

Dude, there is no way you are DK. You actually talk sense.

For this, I thank you.

I don't think I want to be a 'DK'.

For this, I thank you.

I don't think I want to be a 'DK'.

You don't.

The fact that they decided to hold these anti-tax protests immediately following one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country was also somewhat ironic.

I dunno... wouldn't the tax cut be seen next year?

My returns were somewhat smaller this year. :(

The fact that they decided to hold these anti-tax protests immediately following one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country was also somewhat ironic.

You just dont get it, man. We're like, a slave man.

Fun fact: All the tea party protests nationwide combined still have lower turn-out than some of the individual protests against the Iraq War. This was hilariously pathetic.

Dude, there is no way you are DK. You actually talk sense.

I never understood where that accusation came from.. unless DK is performing some slick imitation of someone who makes calm, reasoned arguments. Or maybe was wondering what it felt like to debate intelligently without resorting to predicatable trolling and spewing rightwing talking points.

I don't agree with some of the stuff he has to say but I don't see any comparison between the two..

Fun fact: All the tea party protests nationwide combined still have lower turn-out than some of the individual protests against the Iraq War. This was hilariously pathetic.

Can I get a source for that? I believe you, Id just like to see it with my own eyes.

Really these things are just the Americans being more like the French and protesting for no reason at all.

Really these things are just the Americans being more like the French and protesting for no reason at all.

The french have reasons! Not good reasons but they have reasons!

I mean, do you like stale croissants? Well, why not set fire to a car?

Can I get a source for that? I believe you, Id just like to see it with my own eyes.

538's got a good article about it. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html) He's even being nice with the New York anti-war protest. Estimates go up to as many as one million participants.

538's got a good article about it. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html) He's even being nice with the New York anti-war protest. Estimates go up to as many as one million participants.

Thank you kindly.

The french have reasons! Not good reasons but they have reasons!

I mean, do you like stale croissants? Well, why not set fire to a car?

The tea baggers didn't set anything that wasn't theirs on fire(maybe a few tea bags i wasn't paying attention).
Their protest did make more sense then a random call for Anarchy at a Financial summit.

I never understood where that accusation came from.. unless DK is performing some slick imitation of someone who makes calm, reasoned arguments. Or maybe was wondering what it felt like to debate intelligently without resorting to predicatable trolling and spewing rightwing talking points.

I don't agree with some of the stuff he has to say but I don't see any comparison between the two..

I've made several threads about things like Obama's campaign promises, and whether or not he's kept them.

As far as I can tell... that's it.

I guess 'DK' must have been big on Obama's campaign promises.

I've made several threads about things like Obama's campaign promises, and whether or not he's kept them.

As far as I can tell... that's it.

I guess 'DK' must have been big on Obama's campaign promises.

DK created several threads about Obama 'breaking' campaign promises and cited sources that didnt say what he claimed they said.

Because of that one source you cited that could be interperted as saying something differently, I think we all kinda assumed you didnt read your source, were just saying 'lulz Obama lied" and thus were DK.

We play 'guess the reincarnation of DK' whenever he gets an account banned (which happens a lot, because hes a troll), and we all kinda jumped the gun on this one.

Because of that one source you cited that could be interperted as saying something differently, I think we all kinda assumed you didnt read your source, were just saying 'lulz Obama lied" and thus were DK.

We play 'guess the reincarnation of DK' whenever he gets an account banned (which happens a lot, because hes a troll), and we all kinda jumped the gun on this one.

But No True Scotsman would do that.

(Lame pun, mine...)

(maybe a few tea bags i wasn't paying attention).

That wasn't tea in those bags.

we all kinda jumped the gun on this one.

I didn't, because I actually read posts.

But No True Scotsman would do that.

(Lame pun, mine...)

I laughed.

That wasn't tea in those bags.

That's why I felt so Relaxed.

I laughed.

No True Scotsman would. :D

Fun fact: All the tea party protests nationwide combined still have lower turn-out than some of the individual protests against the Iraq War. This was hilariously pathetic.
If you really want to have fun, compare the number of stories and number of hours that Faux News spent promoting and "reporting" on the Teabaggers...and compare this to the amount of time and attention given to the (vastly larger) anti-war protests, or the (vastly lsarger) pro-immigration protests of a couple years back, or the March For Women's Lives (also vastly larger) from I think it was 2004.

No True Scotsman would. :D

Heikoku, you're the resident joke killer. You shoot jokes in the face as they beg for mercy, then mutilate their bodies.

Heikoku, you're the resident joke killer. You shoot jokes in the face as they beg for mercy, then mutilate their bodies.

And then I violate their dead bodies sexually. And I hug and eat them. And cry myself to sleep while rubbing myself in their blood. :(

I need help. I'm a MONSTER! A MONSTER, I TELL YOU!!!

And then I violate their dead bodies sexually. And I hug and eat them. And cry myself to sleep while rubbing myself in their blood. :(

I need help. I'm a MONSTER! A MONSTER, I TELL YOU!!!

...

That was horrifically unexpected.

I need help.

I already knew this.

I'm a MONSTER! A MONSTER, I TELL YOU!!!

And this.

...

That was horrifically unexpected.

:D:D a

If you really want to have fun, compare the number of stories and number of hours that Faux News spent promoting and "reporting" on the Teabaggers...and compare this to the amount of time and attention given to the (vastly larger) anti-war protests, or the (vastly lsarger) pro-immigration protests of a couple years back, or the March For Women's Lives (also vastly larger) from I think it was 2004.
the funnier thing is hearing sean hannity claim that he had never seen a political protest that big. where has he been living?

the funnier thing is hearing sean hannity claim that he had never seen a political protest that big. where has he been living?

the north pole ?

the north pole ?
he must be.

although there was the year all santa's elves went on strike.....

Fox is the new CNN, CNN is the new Fox, and MSNBC is the new Comedy Central.

Fox is the new CNN, CNN is the new Fox, and MSNBC is the new Comedy Central.
and poor john stewart is going to have to go back to waiting tables.

Dollars and Sense (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1D6ED0F90BBF1828)

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view, I offer this YouTube playlist link. Of course, you can always continue with the usual NSG ad hominem attacks and tasteless mockery too.

Dollars and Sense (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1D6ED0F90BBF1828)

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view, I offer this YouTube playlist link. Of course, you can always continue with the usual NSG ad hominem attacks and tasteless mockery too.

I'm gunna get a tax cut and they are too. And yet they are protesting higher taxes.

I think I understand their position pretty well. A black guy got elected and some folks ain't happy.

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view,

Given that I saw racial slurs, anti-Democrat signs, etc - the best you can really say is 'in case you want to understand MY point of view'.

Dollars and Sense (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1D6ED0F90BBF1828)

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view, I offer this YouTube playlist link. Of course, you can always continue with the usual NSG ad hominem attacks and tasteless mockery too.
you think i want to watch a bunch of videos?

got anything written?

you think i want to watch a bunch of videos?

got anything written?

You're not missing much. I'm two thirds of the way through the playlist now, and the guy is either an idiot making text-book mistakes, or is a crook.

He gives a grade-school level definition for 'inflation', and goes on to expand heavily on his subject matter, based on this overly simplistic ideal.

He presents some interesting and amusing ideas - he seems to think that America invented commodity money, weights and measures, promisary notes, etc.

In one section he argues both for AND against 'paper' money. Apparently, relying on the fact that you're not paying attention sufficient to understand.

He spends a lot of time justifying archaic policy, apparently unaware that it is no longer 1907.


I'll post anything of note in the last two videos, if I find anything worthy.

You're not missing much. I'm two thirds of the way through the playlist now, and the guy is either an idiot making text-book mistakes, or is a crook.

He gives a grade-school level definition for 'inflation', and goes on to expand heavily on his subject matter, based on this overly simplistic ideal.

He presents some interesting and amusing ideas - he seems to think that America invented commodity money, weights and measures, promisary notes, etc.

In one section he argues both for AND against 'paper' money. Apparently, relying on the fact that you're not paying attention sufficient to understand.

He spends a lot of time justifying archaic policy, apparently unaware that it is no longer 1907.


I'll post anything of note in the last two videos, if I find anything worthy.
thanks!

thanks!

De nada. :)

He also seems to be blissfully unaware that inflation is not peculiar to fiat currency. As far as I can tell, he thinks we wouldn't have inflation, if we were exchanging hands-full of gold.

De nada. :)

He also seems to be blissfully unaware that inflation is not peculiar to fiat currency. As far as I can tell, he thinks we wouldn't have inflation, if we were exchanging hands-full of gold.
so tothe feels that the teabag thing is basically libertarian?

so tothe feels that the teabag thing is basically libertarian?

I'm... guessing. Although, if this guy in the videos 'speaks for him', then it's a new breed of libertarian.

More highlights:

According to the video, the Council on Foreign Relations serves the sole purpose of trying to bring about a One World Government (his words).

The Federal Reserve is the realization of Karl Marx's dream of a state controlled bank. Indeed, it's gone one better, by not being controlled by the state. (Again, this clown seems to believe you can argue both for AND against something).

The last half of the fourth video is basically dedicated to how evil and murderous communists are, and how China has lent us money. Because they're evil. And so is Nixon.

The last video is the best. In this chapter, we find out that the British Prime Minister is trying to suggest international regulation of trade, which is synonymous with a New World Order (again, his words).


If this is libertarianism, it is batshit insane libertarianism. This guy is, to libertarian politics, what the WBC is to Christianity.

(Oh, I also missed out a bit about how the government is stealing all your stuff, because of inflation).

Long as its the only place where it REALLY makes sense, The Alamo! lol

I'm... guessing. Although, if this guy in the videos 'speaks for him', then it's a new breed of libertarian.

More highlights:

According to the video, the Council on Foreign Relations serves the sole purpose of trying to bring about a One World Government (his words).

The Federal Reserve is the realization of Karl Marx's dream of a state controlled bank. Indeed, it's gone one better, by not being controlled by the state. (Again, this clown seems to believe you can argue both for AND against something).

The last half of the fourth video is basically dedicated to how evil and murderous communists are, and how China has lent us money. Because they're evil. And so is Nixon.

The last video is the best. In this chapter, we find out that the British Prime Minister is trying to suggest international regulation of trade, which is synonymous with a New World Order (again, his words).


If this is libertarianism, it is batshit insane libertarianism. This guy is, to libertarian politics, what the WBC is to Christianity.

(Oh, I also missed out a bit about how the government is stealing all your stuff, because of inflation).
interesting

id guess that there were far more insane racists than "new world order" conspiracy theorists. and i dont think that the average attendee was an insane racist.

it seemed to me to be more about people being worried about the state of the economy and what it might mean to be spending so much more money than we are taking in.

with foxnews trying to co-opt it into an anti-obama thing.

interesting

id guess that there were far more insane racists than "new world order" conspiracy theorists. and i dont think that the average attendee was an insane racist.

it seemed to me to be more about people being worried about the state of the economy and what it might mean to be spending so much more money than we are taking in.

with foxnews trying to co-opt it into an anti-obama thing.

Yes - I'm standing by my earlier comment that this video might reflect the poster, but I don't think it can be universally taken as reflecting the mass.

If this is libertarianism, it is batshit insane libertarianism.

sounds pretty standard, really

with foxnews trying to co-opt it into an anti-obama thing.

That insinuates the right-wing media wasn't behind it in the first place, which they were. It was always an anti-Obama thing.

That insinuates the right-wing media wasn't behind it in the first place, which they were. It was always an anti-Obama thing.
well kinda.

not that i remember any more how it got started.

oh i dont know. the bigwigs of the right have been working up anti-obama sentiment in the weak minded since he got the nomination. so i guess youre most likely right.

sounds pretty standard, really

Clueless and conspiratorial?

Clueless and conspiratorial?

yep. the libertarians are an odd amalgamation of loons - goldbugs, nativists, gun nuts, people who think the south will rise again, outright nazis, some an-caps thrown in for good measure, etc.

Really these things are just the Americans being more like the French and protesting for no reason at all.
Which is only hiliariously ironic, considering how anti-French these demonstrators typically are.


I've made several threads about things like Obama's campaign promises, and whether or not he's kept them.

As far as I can tell... that's it.

I guess 'DK' must have been big on Obama's campaign promises.
For me it was that spate of Obama-lied threads you put up all at once, every one of which said basically the same things about Obama while failing to show how your linked sources backed up your arguments.

DK was/is (I'm sure he'll be back) notorious for carpet-bombing the forum with threads and posts all saying the same things about Obama or whatever else he felt like attacking that month, for claiming facts without evidence, and for linking to sources that in fact said the opposite of what he was claiming they said, among other bad tactics.

So, that multi-thread introduction to you was so similar to DK, a lot of us who were waiting for him to pop up again, thought you were him. Since then, though, you have shown yourself to be much smarter, much more nuanced in your thinking, and much more entertaining than DK ever was.

But still, watch yourself, 'kay? Because I still have my suspicions. :tongue:



I'm... guessing. Although, if this guy in the videos 'speaks for him', then it's a new breed of libertarian.

More highlights:

<snip for length>
One question: Is the guy actually wearing a colander on his head with tinfoil antennas while he says these things?

Dollars and Sense (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1D6ED0F90BBF1828)

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view, I offer this YouTube playlist link. Of course, you can always continue with the usual NSG ad hominem attacks and tasteless mockery too.

We understand their 'point of view'.

That doesnt make it any less stupid or delusional.

I was looking through the Atlanta Tax Day Tea Party photos (http://atlphotographers.com/uncategorized/photographs-of-the-atlanta-tax-day-tea-party/)...

What does this (http://atlphotographers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atlanta_tea_party_174.jpg) (3rd image from the bottom) have to do with protesting against taxes?

I was looking through the Atlanta Tax Day Tea Party photos (http://atlphotographers.com/uncategorized/photographs-of-the-atlanta-tax-day-tea-party/)...

What does this (http://atlphotographers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atlanta_tea_party_174.jpg) (3rd image from the bottom) have to do with protesting against taxes?
Newt Gingrich's date?

Hm... I'd say either that pic got into the article by mistake, or those parties were more fun than I imagined. ;)

Dollars and Sense (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1D6ED0F90BBF1828)

Just in case some of you want to actually understand a bit of the tea party point of view, I offer this YouTube playlist link. Of course, you can always continue with the usual NSG ad hominem attacks and tasteless mockery too.

Post whatever you want as "proof," it will not cause me to see right through the illusion that this isn't an anti-Democrat sheepherding event by right-wing talking heads.