Guide To The Liberal Mind

[Redfish]

Rich people and giant corps are bloated and hoarding, while the nonrich and the country are hurting, hater dupes. Liberals are not against wealth, just greed and stupidity, screwing workers and pollution. Reaganism suqs, fools. see sig pp1.

Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are doing is engaging in Maoist philosophy. It is virtually the same emotive rhetoric which sparked the People's Revolution which brought Mao into power in China. His policies led to the deaths of over 70 million people and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

There are some very important things to remember here. You can never legislate "greed" out of existence. You can never "screw" workers who have the freedom and liberty to become CEOs.

there are quite a few parallels between Mao, Hitler, Chavez, Pol Pot, and Obama. We ignore them at our risk.

 

[Boss]

Liberals founded this nation

What were they thinking?

the founders were not liberals. they were libertarian constitutionalists.

They were actually classical liberals. The concept of self-governing under a constitution allowing freedom was a very liberal concept in their time. Liberalism today has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Today's Liberal is basically a Communist Socialist or Marxist. The closest thing we have today to what the founding fathers were is the libertarian segment of the Tea Party. I say this with all due respect to people like Hamilton, who was a prime example of their diversification. The founding fathers, like politicians today, did not all fit into one mold.

 

[occupied]

Rich people and giant corps are bloated and hoarding, while the nonrich and the country are hurting, hater dupes. Liberals are not against wealth, just greed and stupidity, screwing workers and pollution. Reaganism suqs, fools. see sig pp1.

Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are doing is engaging in Maoist philosophy. It is virtually the same emotive rhetoric which sparked the People's Revolution which brought Mao into power in China. His policies led to the deaths of over 70 million people and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

There are some very important things to remember here. You can never legislate "greed" out of existence. You can never "screw" workers who have the freedom and liberty to become CEOs.

Whether you are aware of it or not, that's the same apathetic attitude that has allowed plutocracies to flourish throughout history. No one wants a communist state here, just real accountability for the economically powerful. Why do you look at those super-wealthy few who are above the law in most respects and see nothing wrong with that?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The extreme right derides education because it cannot compete. Their low self esteem is their problem. Ignorance can be cured through education but stupidity is a life sentence.

Only a liberal could write a position which is self-refuting. Liberals complain that the Right can't compete while at the same time complaining that the Right has won the economic competition and has too much money.

Your failure to comprehend the difference between education and economics exposes why you are a home schooled extreme right wing theist.

More name-calling, as if that answers everything.

So you can't define the difference between education and economics either?

That says volumes.

You didn't ask me specifically to give you a definition. The difference should be obvious.

Just for argument sake, what do you think is the difference? I know any answer I give you would be automatically wrong. Let's hear your's first.

Yet another non sequitur response. Why don't you send me a pm when you have something of substance to contribute?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals founded this nation

What were they thinking?

the founders were not liberals. they were libertarian constitutionalists.

They were actually classical liberals. The concept of self-governing under a constitution allowing freedom was a very liberal concept in their time. Liberalism today has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Today's Liberal is basically a Communist Socialist or Marxist. The closest thing we have today to what the founding fathers were is the libertarian segment of the Tea Party. I say this with all due respect to people like Hamilton, who was a prime example of their diversification. The founding fathers, like politicians today, did not all fit into one mold.

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

 

[Boss]

Rich people and giant corps are bloated and hoarding, while the nonrich and the country are hurting, hater dupes. Liberals are not against wealth, just greed and stupidity, screwing workers and pollution. Reaganism suqs, fools. see sig pp1.

Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are doing is engaging in Maoist philosophy. It is virtually the same emotive rhetoric which sparked the People's Revolution which brought Mao into power in China. His policies led to the deaths of over 70 million people and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

There are some very important things to remember here. You can never legislate "greed" out of existence. You can never "screw" workers who have the freedom and liberty to become CEOs.

Whether you are aware of it or not, that's the same apathetic attitude that has allowed plutocracies to flourish throughout history. No one wants a communist state here, just real accountability for the economically powerful. Why do you look at those super-wealthy few who are above the law in most respects and see nothing wrong with that?

Because in this country with our Constitution, we can't have a plutocracy and no one is above the law. I see nothing wrong with super-wealthy or super-duper-wealthy, as they have utilized a free market capitalist system which has been responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

Yes, you do want a Communist state here, you just don't want to call it that. You want a central government controlling wealth acquisition so as to enable a more equal distribution to all. This is Communism, plain and simple. You hold a viewpoint that America is comprised of classes, there are people who control all the wealth and there are "workers" who you've convinced yourself, can never escape the lot in life they've been given. You don't seem to understand where your rhetoric fails is in how our system of free enterprise is established. We ALL have the same freedom and ability to attain whatever level of economic success we can dream of. We are NOT "workers" who are beholden to the government or tyranny of the few.

 

[Boss]

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

LMAO... Sure they did. What part of "secure the blessings of liberty" are you having trouble with?

 

[Wildman]

Liberals founded this nation

What were they thinking?

the founders were not liberals. they were libertarian constitutionalists.

>>>>>>>>
and very CONSERVATIVE in their ways to survive !

 

[mudwhistle]

And

Only a liberal could write a position which is self-refuting. Liberals complain that the Right can't compete while at the same time complaining that the Right has won the economic competition and has too much money.

Your failure to comprehend the difference between education and economics exposes why you are a home schooled extreme right wing theist.

More name-calling, as if that answers everything.

So you can't define the difference between education and economics either?

That says volumes.

You didn't ask me specifically to give you a definition. The difference should be obvious.

Just for argument sake, what do you think is the difference? I know any answer I give you would be automatically wrong. Let's hear your's first.

Yet another non sequitur response. Why don't you send me a pm when you have something of substance to contribute?

And you dodge the question.

Why should anyone answer your stupid questions when you refuse to yourself.

 

[occupied]

Rich people and giant corps are bloated and hoarding, while the nonrich and the country are hurting, hater dupes. Liberals are not against wealth, just greed and stupidity, screwing workers and pollution. Reaganism suqs, fools. see sig pp1.

Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are doing is engaging in Maoist philosophy. It is virtually the same emotive rhetoric which sparked the People's Revolution which brought Mao into power in China. His policies led to the deaths of over 70 million people and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

There are some very important things to remember here. You can never legislate "greed" out of existence. You can never "screw" workers who have the freedom and liberty to become CEOs.

Whether you are aware of it or not, that's the same apathetic attitude that has allowed plutocracies to flourish throughout history. No one wants a communist state here, just real accountability for the economically powerful. Why do you look at those super-wealthy few who are above the law in most respects and see nothing wrong with that?

Because in this country with our Constitution, we can't have a plutocracy and no one is above the law. I see nothing wrong with super-wealthy or super-duper-wealthy, as they have utilized a free market capitalist system which has been responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

Yes, you do want a Communist state here, you just don't want to call it that. You want a central government controlling wealth acquisition so as to enable a more equal distribution to all. This is Communism, plain and simple. You hold a viewpoint that America is comprised of classes, there are people who control all the wealth and there are "workers" who you've convinced yourself, can never escape the lot in life they've been given. You don't seem to understand where your rhetoric fails is in how our system of free enterprise is established. We ALL have the same freedom and ability to attain whatever level of economic success we can dream of. We are NOT "workers" who are beholden to the government or tyranny of the few.

All I want is when fucking bankers crash the economy and cause untold misery at least a few of them should be jailed and made as poor as the people they swindled. How is that communism? How is it communism to have extreme distaste at how institutionalized the buying and selling of influence is? How money equals speech and how it talks louder than any number of regular people? No, communism is not hating the plutocrats and their aristocracy, it is as American as apple pie to hate unaccountable power, pity the right forgot that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

LMAO... Sure they did. What part of "secure the blessings of liberty" are you having trouble with?

That expression does not have a libertarian trademark. But thanks for admitting that the FF were not libertarians.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And

Your failure to comprehend the difference between education and economics exposes why you are a home schooled extreme right wing theist.

More name-calling, as if that answers everything.

So you can't define the difference between education and economics either?

That says volumes.

You didn't ask me specifically to give you a definition. The difference should be obvious.

Just for argument sake, what do you think is the difference? I know any answer I give you would be automatically wrong. Let's hear your's first.

Yet another non sequitur response. Why don't you send me a pm when you have something of substance to contribute?

And you dodge the question.

Why should anyone answer your stupid questions when you refuse to yourself.

Ironic!

 

[mudwhistle]

And

More name-calling, as if that answers everything.

So you can't define the difference between education and economics either?

That says volumes.

You didn't ask me specifically to give you a definition. The difference should be obvious.

Just for argument sake, what do you think is the difference? I know any answer I give you would be automatically wrong. Let's hear your's first.

Yet another non sequitur response. Why don't you send me a pm when you have something of substance to contribute?

And you dodge the question.

Why should anyone answer your stupid questions when you refuse to yourself.

Ironic!

Yup.
Still waiting on an answer......

 

[Boss]

All I want is when fucking bankers crash the economy and cause untold misery at least a few of them should be jailed and made as poor as the people they swindled. How is that communism? How is it communism to have extreme distaste at how institutionalized the buying and selling of influence is? How money equals speech and how it talks louder than any number of regular people? No, communism is not hating the plutocrats and their aristocracy, it is as American as apple pie to hate unaccountable power, pity the right forgot that.

Well bankers don't crash the economy. It is a very simple-minded view this is the case. Bankers are capitalists, they operate by the same free market capitalist principles as all other capitalists. You see, you've been systematically brainwashed by Socialists to believe bankers are bad. It just automatically computes in your mind that bankers are these people who have all the money and they won't give it to you and I because they are greedy hoarders who want it all for themselves.

As for swindling people and breaking laws, we DO send people to prison for that. We have all kinds of anti-trust laws, and powerful corrupt people are brought down every single day. You see, it's in the system you advocate that this doesn't happen. Whenever you've turned control over to the central government, those people become the "ruling class" and are forever protected. They don't go to prison for corruption, you never hear about the Enron scandals. There is no buying or selling of influence because the ruling class controls all the power AND money.

In a free society, money does equal speech. Sorry, that's a fact of life in a free society. If I have more money than you, I can buy time on radio and TV, have my speech printed in magazines and newspapers, hire people to go out and speak for me, etc. There is no way to limit that without limiting free speech itself. Now we can do that, but we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. But keep in mind, free speech doesn't mean mind control. Just because someone has the money to put their message out, doesn't mean you have to listen or believe it.

We have a system of government where our representatives are elected by us. If you don't like who is influencing your politician, don't vote for them. You have that power, you also have the power to go out there and campaign against them, convince others to not vote for them. Are you scared to be free man?

 

[Boss]

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

LMAO... Sure they did. What part of "secure the blessings of liberty" are you having trouble with?

That expression does not have a libertarian trademark. But thanks for admitting that the FF were not libertarians.

That expression is very much a libertarian trademark, how is it not? I didn't admit the FF were not libertarian. Many of their views are very much in line with libertarian philosophy. As I said, the closest thing today to what the majority of FF were is the libertarian wing of the Tea Party movement.

What the FF weren't is Communist Socialists and Marxists.

 

[occupied]

All I want is when fucking bankers crash the economy and cause untold misery at least a few of them should be jailed and made as poor as the people they swindled. How is that communism? How is it communism to have extreme distaste at how institutionalized the buying and selling of influence is? How money equals speech and how it talks louder than any number of regular people? No, communism is not hating the plutocrats and their aristocracy, it is as American as apple pie to hate unaccountable power, pity the right forgot that.

Well bankers don't crash the economy. It is a very simple-minded view this is the case. Bankers are capitalists, they operate by the same free market capitalist principles as all other capitalists. You see, you've been systematically brainwashed by Socialists to believe bankers are bad. It just automatically computes in your mind that bankers are these people who have all the money and they won't give it to you and I because they are greedy hoarders who want it all for themselves.

As for swindling people and breaking laws, we DO send people to prison for that. We have all kinds of anti-trust laws, and powerful corrupt people are brought down every single day. You see, it's in the system you advocate that this doesn't happen. Whenever you've turned control over to the central government, those people become the "ruling class" and are forever protected. They don't go to prison for corruption, you never hear about the Enron scandals. There is no buying or selling of influence because the ruling class controls all the power AND money.

In a free society, money does equal speech. Sorry, that's a fact of life in a free society. If I have more money than you, I can buy time on radio and TV, have my speech printed in magazines and newspapers, hire people to go out and speak for me, etc. There is no way to limit that without limiting free speech itself. Now we can do that, but we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. But keep in mind, free speech doesn't mean mind control. Just because someone has the money to put their message out, doesn't mean you have to listen or believe it.

We have a system of government where our representatives are elected by us. If you don't like who is influencing your politician, don't vote for them. You have that power, you also have the power to go out there and campaign against them, convince others to not vote for them. Are you scared to be free man?

It's one thing to ignore a broken system, that's just natural human laziness, it's quite another to defend it as good. The answer to the broken system that leaves us ruled by a defacto aristocracy is to do just what I and many others are doing, setting straight people such as yourself who seem to like having no voice in government policy or foolishly think the interests of billionaires coincide with the rest of us.

 

[regent]

Liberals founded this nation

What were they thinking?

the founders were not liberals. they were libertarian constitutionalists.

They were actually classical liberals. The concept of self-governing under a constitution allowing freedom was a very liberal concept in their time. Liberalism today has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Today's Liberal is basically a Communist Socialist or Marxist. The closest thing we have today to what the founding fathers were is the libertarian segment of the Tea Party. I say this with all due respect to people like Hamilton, who was a prime example of their diversification. The founding fathers, like politicians today, did not all fit into one mold.

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

The framers of the Constitution created a government with tremendous powers compared to the governments they were replacing. The framers were of different political persuasions but they were intent on creating a stronger national government at the expense of the state governments. The framers template for government at that time was from the Age of Enlightenment, even as Jefferson had written it in the Declaration of Independence. Pure and simple liberalism.

 

[Redfish]

Liberals founded this nation

What were they thinking?

the founders were not liberals. they were libertarian constitutionalists.

They were actually classical liberals. The concept of self-governing under a constitution allowing freedom was a very liberal concept in their time. Liberalism today has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Today's Liberal is basically a Communist Socialist or Marxist. The closest thing we have today to what the founding fathers were is the libertarian segment of the Tea Party. I say this with all due respect to people like Hamilton, who was a prime example of their diversification. The founding fathers, like politicians today, did not all fit into one mold.

Utter nonsense since the FF did not espouse libertarian principles or set up the constitution to support them.

The framers of the Constitution created a government with tremendous powers compared to the governments they were replacing. The framers were of different political persuasions but they were intent on creating a stronger national government at the expense of the state governments. The framers template for government at that time was from the Age of Enlightenment, even as Jefferson had written it in the Declaration of Independence. Pure and simple liberalism.

total horseshit. are you saying that the government of the USA in 1776 had more power than the monarchy in England in 1776?

the purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of the federal government, not expand it.

 

[Redfish]

All I want is when fucking bankers crash the economy and cause untold misery at least a few of them should be jailed and made as poor as the people they swindled. How is that communism? How is it communism to have extreme distaste at how institutionalized the buying and selling of influence is? How money equals speech and how it talks louder than any number of regular people? No, communism is not hating the plutocrats and their aristocracy, it is as American as apple pie to hate unaccountable power, pity the right forgot that.

Well bankers don't crash the economy. It is a very simple-minded view this is the case. Bankers are capitalists, they operate by the same free market capitalist principles as all other capitalists. You see, you've been systematically brainwashed by Socialists to believe bankers are bad. It just automatically computes in your mind that bankers are these people who have all the money and they won't give it to you and I because they are greedy hoarders who want it all for themselves.

As for swindling people and breaking laws, we DO send people to prison for that. We have all kinds of anti-trust laws, and powerful corrupt people are brought down every single day. You see, it's in the system you advocate that this doesn't happen. Whenever you've turned control over to the central government, those people become the "ruling class" and are forever protected. They don't go to prison for corruption, you never hear about the Enron scandals. There is no buying or selling of influence because the ruling class controls all the power AND money.

In a free society, money does equal speech. Sorry, that's a fact of life in a free society. If I have more money than you, I can buy time on radio and TV, have my speech printed in magazines and newspapers, hire people to go out and speak for me, etc. There is no way to limit that without limiting free speech itself. Now we can do that, but we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. But keep in mind, free speech doesn't mean mind control. Just because someone has the money to put their message out, doesn't mean you have to listen or believe it.

We have a system of government where our representatives are elected by us. If you don't like who is influencing your politician, don't vote for them. You have that power, you also have the power to go out there and campaign against them, convince others to not vote for them. Are you scared to be free man?

It's one thing to ignore a broken system, that's just natural human laziness, it's quite another to defend it as good. The answer to the broken system that leaves us ruled by a defacto aristocracy is to do just what I and many others are doing, setting straight people such as yourself who seem to like having no voice in government policy or foolishly think the interests of billionaires coincide with the rest of us.

your jealousy and envy of successful people is noted.

 

[sealybobo]

To write a book on the mind, don't you have to have one first?

Not only do you need a mind but the ability to write coherently would be an essential requirement too.

But this does raise an interesting question. Why do those least qualified to write on a topic believe that they should tackle the subject matter? Isn't one of the basic premises that books are written by those who actually have a grasp of the subject matter concerned? Instead we have clueless buffoons who believe that they are "experts" spouting utter gibberish to their equally uninformed audiences.

The OP should start with something more within his own range of "expertise". The 'Dummy's Guide to Pretentious Obliviousness' would be an appropriate topic for the OP since that covers all of his threads to date.

I think he can write a chapter or two on how liberals think they're smarter than everyone else. Make sure to use lots of big words so they''ll be impressed.

The extreme right derides education because it cannot compete. Their low self esteem is their problem. Ignorance can be cured through education but stupidity is a life sentence.

Only a liberal could write a position which is self-refuting. Liberals complain that the Right can't compete while at the same time complaining that the Right has won the economic competition and has too much money.

Libtards are jealous because the rich r smart enough to get rich, they aren't.

I have read so many ignorant right wing posts I don't know where to begin. I try to kiss republicans. Keep It Simple Stupid.

There are a lot of smart rich liberals out there. I remember one guy saying the smartest guys he knew were out there on the union shop floor because at least they were smart enough to insist on a fair share of the profits.

Notice a lot of celebs are liberal? That's because they weren't born with a silver spoon in our mouths.

And the rich you defend isn't the rich person who got rich because they were smarter or worked harder. We have a problem with old money in this country. They don't work for their money. Like Romney, they make their money on investments and by ruining companies. American workers cost too much so they shipped those jobs overseas. The rich in this country don't care about America. That's why our government has to defend the worker. If you don't get that, go start a libertarian country somewhere and see how that works out for ya.

America from 1950-2000 had the greatest middle class the world had ever seen. Republicans don't defend NAFTA, they just come back with "Clinton signed it". What a cop out. Republicans blamed unions for why companies were going overseas. Well of course when you can go from $25 hr to $5 a day, of course! I don't want to get distracted and go off on a tangent. What happened? As the union jobs went away and the Walmart jobs moved in, middle class America took a huge blow. Many today who think they are middle class are barely above the poverty line.

Long story short is we need some of the money the rich stole from us with those tax breaks. And we need to strengthen social security. The GOP blame the poor when they themselves PURPOSELY bankrupted the government. Not the poor, but the PENTAGON. Corporate tax breaks so that GE basically doesn't pay any taxes. Letting companies offshore their profits.

Do I really need to go on? You dumb ass middle class republicans are so fucking stupid I don't know why I even bother. That's why I stay in the Religion thread where I can attack the source of your stupidity. The fact you believe in an invisible man tells me you'll believe anything your politician/preacher says. You are fucking sheep. Us liberals follow no one unless they make sense. Like John Stewart, Bill Maher or Colbert. Where is the GOP's version of Colbert? He doesn't exist. Why? Because all the GOP spokespeople are liars and assholes. Ann Coulter's of the world. *****. LOL You are a ****. LOL