How Far to the Left is Too Far?

[PeoplePower]

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.



Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

Even .... when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do,.... And that is to destroy the black family.

I think it's important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won't be ripped off by politicians," he says. "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy. The State Against Blacks - Wall Street Journal

........ He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15110...andoned_the_middle_class_in_favor_of_the_rich

Welfare killed the black family? That's absolutely absurd. The problems that blacks have today arose from slavery, Jim Crow laws and colonialism of Africa.
Welfare has helped families remedy these problems.







Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[GreenBean]

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.



Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

........ He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich | Alternet

Welfare killed the black family? That's absolutely absurd. The problems that blacks have today arose from slavery, Jim Crow laws and colonialism of Africa.
Welfare has helped families remedy these problems.







Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Pure Opinion - do you have anything other than you opinion to back up your opinion ?

 

[kaz]

I know we can go back and forth on the Liberal/Libertarian/Classical Liberal; the fact is that the main root of those philosophy is Liberalism. I simply refer to myself as a Liberal, though Libertarians and I agree on many points.

What politician is referring to themselves as a Liberal these days? I do see people from George Wallace to Rush Limbaugh , as well as people who have similar mindsets, calling people they disagree with "LIBRULS!" in a disparaging manner.

On your last point, I already addressed that. They are referring to the people who call themselves liberals.

When you are advocating government say out of people's lives and let them make their own choices, you are being a liberal. When you are advocating redistribution of wealth, you are being an authoritarian leftist. There is no overlap.

When you are advocating government say out of people's lives and let them make their own choices, you are being a liberal ...

does that mean Republicans want the Government to be in their life and make choices for them ??

Yes

 

[kaz]

He was a fascist, not a socialist. Kind of a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There is only a slight difference. In full socialism, industry is directly owned by the government.

In fascism, industry is technically owned by individuals, but it is controlled by government. That's how it worked under Hitler. Fascism for that reason is referred to as Socialism Lite. There is no functional difference and fascism always leads to socialism.

Hitler knew it was the same, which is why his party called themselves the socialist party.

Fascism has nothing to do with hating gays or Jews. The fascists of Europe did that, but they weren't being fascists when they did it. A Democrat eating a pizza doesn't make it Democrat to eat pizza.

This is actually not true. There are
MANY differences between Fascists and Socialists. For one, fascists are nationalist, while socialists are internationalists. Fascism is militaristic, whole socialism is peace loving. Fascism is homophobic and for "traditional family values." Socialism is areligious and doesn't care about said values. Fascism believes In a super-patriotic state with one party dictatorial rule. They believe that in order for a country to prosper, it must constantly be at war. Socialism on the other hand gives all access to resources by means of a brotherhood like governor and quality.

There's also many other differences.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Fascism is the economic system that the Nazis followed. You are again saying that if a Democrat eats pizza, part of the definition of Democrat is someone who eats pizza. No, eating pizza has nothing to do with Democrat. The fascists of Europe in the 30s were nationalistic, it isn't what fascism means.

The socialism being "peace loving" cracked me up. The Soviets, Red Army, North Korea and Democratic party certainly show that to be the crap that it is.

 

[PeoplePower]

There is only a slight difference. In full socialism, industry is directly owned by the government.

In fascism, industry is technically owned by individuals, but it is controlled by government. That's how it worked under Hitler. Fascism for that reason is referred to as Socialism Lite. There is no functional difference and fascism always leads to socialism.

Hitler knew it was the same, which is why his party called themselves the socialist party.

Fascism has nothing to do with hating gays or Jews. The fascists of Europe did that, but they weren't being fascists when they did it. A Democrat eating a pizza doesn't make it Democrat to eat pizza.

This is actually not true. There are
MANY differences between Fascists and Socialists. For one, fascists are nationalist, while socialists are internationalists. Fascism is militaristic, whole socialism is peace loving. Fascism is homophobic and for "traditional family values." Socialism is areligious and doesn't care about said values. Fascism believes In a super-patriotic state with one party dictatorial rule. They believe that in order for a country to prosper, it must constantly be at war. Socialism on the other hand gives all access to resources by means of a brotherhood like governor and quality.

There's also many other differences.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Fascism is the economic system that the Nazis followed. You are again saying that if a Democrat eats pizza, part of the definition of Democrat is someone who eats pizza. No, eating pizza has nothing to do with Democrat. The fascists of Europe in the 30s were nationalistic, it isn't what fascism means.

The socialism being "peace loving" cracked me up. The Soviets, Red Army, North Korea and Democratic party certainly show that to be the crap that it is.

To what fascism is-extreme nationalism, essentially.

The Soviets weren't really socialists. Neither are the North Koreans or the Democratic Party (which is very center right).






Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[PeoplePower]

This is actually not true. There are
MANY differences between Fascists and Socialists. For one, fascists are nationalist, while socialists are internationalists. Fascism is militaristic, whole socialism is peace loving. Fascism is homophobic and for "traditional family values." Socialism is areligious and doesn't care about said values. Fascism believes In a super-patriotic state with one party dictatorial rule. They believe that in order for a country to prosper, it must constantly be at war. Socialism on the other hand gives all access to resources by means of a brotherhood like governor and quality.

There's also many other differences.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Fascism is the economic system that the Nazis followed. You are again saying that if a Democrat eats pizza, part of the definition of Democrat is someone who eats pizza. No, eating pizza has nothing to do with Democrat. The fascists of Europe in the 30s were nationalistic, it isn't what fascism means.

The socialism being "peace loving" cracked me up. The Soviets, Red Army, North Korea and Democratic party certainly show that to be the crap that it is.

To what fascism is-extreme nationalism, essentially.

The Soviets weren't really socialists. Neither are the North Koreans or the Democratic Party (which is very center right).






Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

*that's


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kaz]

[the Democratic Party (which is very center right)

The Democrats are Marxists, how far left are you? I think you're so far left, you've left the building...

 

[jasonnfree]

Jesus is the farthest left that the spectrum goes, Hitler is on the right.

It's that simple.

What makes you believe Jesus was a leftist when the democrat party kicked God out of their platform?

No, dingleberry. America kicked God out of the Constitution. It's the very first sentence of the very First Amendment. Pray to your sad little imaginary friend in the sky for comfort in the big crazy world. Go ahead. But you won't force me to obey your imaginary friend in court. It's that simple.

Jesus was a leftist because Jesus grew pot, wouldn't tolerate any shit from bankers, didn't have a problem with gay people, and he believed in universal free healthcare for everyone, regardless of race, gender or whatever. Again, it's that simple.

Jesus had long hair, wore birkenstocks, and preached peace. He would be no friend of the right wing, that's for sure.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Democrats are Socialist rats who would lie to God in his face if it meant pushing a leftist agenda. Any jog left is too far from the party who kicked God and Jews from their platform, not to mention BOOOOO'd God at their last Convention.

 

[jasonnfree]

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.



Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

Even .... when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do,.... And that is to destroy the black family.

I think it's important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won't be ripped off by politicians," he says. "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy. The State Against Blacks - Wall Street Journal

........ He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich | Alternet

The right wing likes to trot out Walter Williams and Uncle Tom Sowell from time to time I see. "See, we're not prejudiced" say the right wing. "We really like our darkies, as long as they act white and preach against food stamps and taxing the rich".

 

[RKMBrown]

There is only a slight difference. In full socialism, industry is directly owned by the government.

In fascism, industry is technically owned by individuals, but it is controlled by government. That's how it worked under Hitler. Fascism for that reason is referred to as Socialism Lite. There is no functional difference and fascism always leads to socialism.

Hitler knew it was the same, which is why his party called themselves the socialist party.

Fascism has nothing to do with hating gays or Jews. The fascists of Europe did that, but they weren't being fascists when they did it. A Democrat eating a pizza doesn't make it Democrat to eat pizza.

This is actually not true. There are
MANY differences between Fascists and Socialists. For one, fascists are nationalist, while socialists are internationalists. Fascism is militaristic, whole socialism is peace loving. Fascism is homophobic and for "traditional family values." Socialism is areligious and doesn't care about said values. Fascism believes In a super-patriotic state with one party dictatorial rule. They believe that in order for a country to prosper, it must constantly be at war. Socialism on the other hand gives all access to resources by means of a brotherhood like governor and quality.

There's also many other differences.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Fascism is the economic system that the Nazis followed. You are again saying that if a Democrat eats pizza, part of the definition of Democrat is someone who eats pizza. No, eating pizza has nothing to do with Democrat. The fascists of Europe in the 30s were nationalistic, it isn't what fascism means.

The socialism being "peace loving" cracked me up. The Soviets, Red Army, North Korea and Democratic party certainly show that to be the crap that it is.

Yeah typical "peace lover" who FORCES socialism on others. Socialists are no different than nazis with their iron boots on the necks of all that do not follow their demands to bend over and accept anal probing on a daily basis.

Today they are satisfied with stealing your assets and killing your cows. Tomorrow they'll be confiscating weapons, then they'll be putting people in camps. All for our own good.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.



Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

........ He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich | Alternet

The right wing likes to trot out Walter Williams and Uncle Tom Sowell from time to time I see. "See, we're not prejudiced" say the right wing. "We really like our darkies, as long as they act white and preach against food stamps and taxing the rich".

Note the true racist language used by the Leftist here.. We see it time and time again..It's like the old saying of a boyfriend always accusing his girl of cheating when in actuality, he;'s the cheater.. Overkill.. The sick and depraved mindset of a liberal on display in this thead, ^^^ that post. Disgusting language which NEVER crosses my lips or any Conservative that I know for that matter.. To be able to say shit like that, takes a racist mindset to begin with.

 

[HenryBHough]

The further left things swing in the near term, the farther they'll swing to the right when the cycle shifts. It always has; it always will. Sometimes peacefully; sometimes violently. But shift it does. And always goes too far in the other direction.

Count on it.

What's frightening is that the swing left is continuing beyond the point where it logically should have reversed. Not that it's a problem just now but when it does swing right it's going to be sudden and awful. Not a kind of awful you'll like.

 

[RKMBrown]

The right wing likes to trot out Walter Williams and Uncle Tom Sowell from time to time I see. "See, we're not prejudiced" say the right wing. "We really like our darkies, as long as they act white and preach against food stamps and taxing the rich".

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[RKMBrown]

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.



Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

The right wing likes to trot out Walter Williams and Uncle Tom Sowell from time to time I see. "See, we're not prejudiced" say the right wing. "We really like our darkies, as long as they act white and preach against food stamps and taxing the rich".

Note the true racist language used by the Leftist here.. We see it time and time again..It's like the old saying of a boyfriend always accusing his girl of cheating when in actuality, he;'s the cheater.. Overkill.. The sick and depraved mindset of a liberal on display in this thead, ^^^ that post. Disgusting language which NEVER crosses my lips or any Conservative that I know for that matter.. To be able to say shit like that, takes a racist mindset to begin with.

I think this racist bigot jason actually believes conservatives should trot out food stamp loving, bilk the rich loving marxist black men who can't speak proper english. Only then would the republicans be showing their love for the black skinned people...

 

[PeoplePower]

[the Democratic Party (which is very center right)

The Democrats are Marxists, how far left are you? I think you're so far left, you've left the building...

The Democratic Party is not a Marxist party. Marxists support the destruction of the state, for one.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[PeoplePower]

Democrats are Socialist rats who would lie to God in his face if it meant pushing a leftist agenda. Any jog left is too far from the party who kicked God and Jews from their platform, not to mention BOOOOO'd God at their last Convention.

Political Party's should be areligious. God does not belong in a political agenda.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[PeoplePower]

The further left things swing in the near term, the farther they'll swing to the right when the cycle shifts. It always has; it always will. Sometimes peacefully; sometimes violently. But shift it does. And always goes too far in the other direction.

Count on it.

What's frightening is that the swing left is continuing beyond the point where it logically should have reversed. Not that it's a problem just now but when it does swing right it's going to be sudden and awful. Not a kind of awful you'll like.

The country has been moving to the right since the 1980s. If Obama was elected in the 1990s, he would practically be a Republican.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Democrats are Socialist rats who would lie to God in his face if it meant pushing a leftist agenda. Any jog left is too far from the party who kicked God and Jews from their platform, not to mention BOOOOO'd God at their last Convention.

Political Party's should be areligious. God does not belong in a political agenda.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Mind your own business.. I'll believe as I damn please and if that includes God , that's my right..

 

[Doubletap]

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged