Imagine what the United States economy would be like TODAY! IF... we had IGNORED THE LEFT!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What does any of that matter? If [JFK] had listened to [Americans] during the Cuban missile crisis we would be long dead, which was my original comment that you have done nothing to refute.

Nonsense. JFK took a hard line... the Soviets blinked first. As the Soviets had the most to lose... . We learned after the fall of the Soviet Union that Soviet Nuclear capability had been grossly exaggerated. Had they launched everything they had at the US, we'd have lost, in the worst case scenario, a few million people, with insignificant losses to infrastructure. The Soviet Union however would have been annihilated.

The net result would have been the total erasure of the Ideological Left in the United States and the soviet subversion of the US would have been stopped in its tracks.

The US would never have elected Carter, thus no subversion of the Iranian Shaw, therefore no Rise of Islam and with no US infiltration by soviet communism, there'd be no Chicago communist machine therefore no William the Bubba, and No soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus no 9-11-01 and there'd have been no Leftist undermining of the Financial Markets, thus no collapse of the financial markets in 08 and no obama... .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Saintmike confuses his liberalism with classical liberalism.

Washington, Jefferson, Henry, etc., would have nothing to do with folks like Saintmike, would turn their sorry conservative asses into the alley.

Wrong. They were never called "classic liberals", they were called liberals. Some libertarians have taken to using the term "classic liberal" to distinguish the true liberals from what are today fallaciously called liberals because of that horse's ass Barry Goldwater.

There's no confusion here.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, with their faults and strengths, were classical liberals.

Libertarians and conservatives can never be considered classical liberals.

They weren't classical liberals, they were liberals. If you can't even get that simple fact through your thick skull, it's impossible to traverse more advanced concepts with you.

You can go read definitions and narratives if you wish. Yes, they were fully in line with classical liberalism of the time, and certainly would not have aligned with the far right and the libertarians today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How many sane, able bodied adult Americans refuse to work an available job in favor of living off of federal or state funds?

None... zero... nada. But tens of millions of Leftists do it everyday.

Blowhard nonsense from a far right bot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense. JFK took a hard line... the Soviets blinked first. As the Soviets had the most to lose... . We learned after the fall of the Soviet Union that Soviet Nuclear capability had been grossly exaggerated. Had they launched everything they had at the US, we'd have lost, in the worst case scenario, a few million people, with insignificant losses to infrastructure. The Soviet Union however would have been annihilated.

The net result would have been the total erasure of the Ideological Left in the United States and the soviet subversion of the US would have been stopped in its tracks.

The US would never have elected Carter, thus no subversion of the Iranian Shaw, therefore no Rise of Islam and with no US infiltration by soviet communism, there'd be no Chicago communist machine therefore no William the Bubba, and No soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus no 9-11-01 and there'd have been no Leftist undermining of the Financial Markets, thus no collapse of the financial markets in 08 and no obama... .

Blowhard nonsense from a far right bot with no evidence except his silly analysis.

 

[jasonnfree]

Can you imagine the angst of those who NEED that kid to produce income, but whose kid is uninterested in seeking employment, because he's addled by his chronic abuse of illicit drugs? A problem created by the Ideological Left's promoting of the abuse of illicit drugs?

Can you imagine the pain of a family who needs a Father's strength, income and protection, but where the Father is no longer around because the Father succumbed to the low-character promoted by the Ideological Left who promoted sexual infidelity, which lead to Father's betrayal of the family, compounded by Dad's abuse of illicit drugs, promoted by the Left's myth that Drug abuse is a perfectly sound PERSONAL DECISION... so Mom, deciding that she didn't NEED FATHER because the Left conned her into believing that she could HAVE IT ALL! Decided that she should not stand with Father, and used the NO-FAULT Divorce Laws advanced by the Left to kick Dad's ass out of the house.

So now Dad is married to a chick half his age, living large in another State, new kids and always just one step ahead of the Leftist system chasing him to pay Alimony and Child support... who when they finally caught up to him, declared bankruptcy, transferred his assets to his hot new wife and draws no income.

MAN! If only the world rejected the perverse reasoning of the Left... where sound reason was still the basis of governance and the idiocy common to deviant reasoning was still limited to the pages of the Far Side calendar and not our unenviable reality.

Put more simply, Leftism is the biggest cause of poverty.

I think there would be a hell of a lot more poverty if not for leftist policies. Capitalism has always created great wealth alongside great poverty. Without the FDR's of the world and some built in safety nets we have, our poor people in this country would be in much worse shape than now. Think of the poverty we'd have without socialist/leftist social security that republicans screamed bloody murder over back in ;the 1930's.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Can you imagine the angst of those who NEED that kid to produce income, but whose kid is uninterested in seeking employment, because he's addled by his chronic abuse of illicit drugs? A problem created by the Ideological Left's promoting of the abuse of illicit drugs?

Can you imagine the pain of a family who needs a Father's strength, income and protection, but where the Father is no longer around because the Father succumbed to the low-character promoted by the Ideological Left who promoted sexual infidelity, which lead to Father's betrayal of the family, compounded by Dad's abuse of illicit drugs, promoted by the Left's myth that Drug abuse is a perfectly sound PERSONAL DECISION... so Mom, deciding that she didn't NEED FATHER because the Left conned her into believing that she could HAVE IT ALL! Decided that she should not stand with Father, and used the NO-FAULT Divorce Laws advanced by the Left to kick Dad's ass out of the house.

So now Dad is married to a chick half his age, living large in another State, new kids and always just one step ahead of the Leftist system chasing him to pay Alimony and Child support... who when they finally caught up to him, declared bankruptcy, transferred his assets to his hot new wife and draws no income.

MAN! If only the world rejected the perverse reasoning of the Left... where sound reason was still the basis of governance and the idiocy common to deviant reasoning was still limited to the pages of the Far Side calendar and not our unenviable reality.

Put more simply, Leftism is the biggest cause of poverty.

I think there would be a hell of a lot more poverty if not for leftist policies. Capitalism has always created great wealth alongside great poverty. Without the FDR's of the world and some built in safety nets we have, our poor people in this country would be in much worse shape than now. Think of the poverty we'd have without socialist/leftist social security that republicans screamed bloody murder over back in ;the 1930's.

I disagree. The welfare state has aggrandized, generalized, and perpetuated over generations poverty in America. The "war on poverty" has done nothing but spread poverty. One of the Left's myths is that there were no safety nets before the "great society" that people failed to take care of one another. Before the government intervened unnecessarily, people had strong networks of family, church, and community. Out of wedlock pregnancies were rare because of a righteous stigma and men were made to take care of the babies they produced. Our welfare system has facilitated more children born out of wedlock, more dependency, and more fathers abandoning their responsibility. This has disproportionately afflicted the black community which continues to lead the way in children growing up without a father.

Misery, destitution, and hopelessness lie in the wake of the welfare state. It's time to get rid of it and restore the dignity of people who work to make their own way.

 

[initforme]

I don't consider SS any part of "socialist" or "welfare". I do consider it a total success though. Imagine the people who would be unable to retire without it.

 

[Nyvin]

The US dollar doesn't lose value because of welfare or any policy, left wing or right wing. It loses value because of the banking system we use, which is the exact same as every other country on Earth as well.

You either have inflation, where the value goes down, or deflation, where the value goes up. Inflation is the more desirable because it means the currency is circulating and loans are being created, thus avoiding the deflationary "death spiral".

There is no magical land in a fiat currency system where there is no inflation or deflation...you're always going to have one or the other. Every country has seen the value of their currency go down from the 1950's. Left-wing policies and Right-wing policies do not prevent or cause it.

 

[jasonnfree]

I don't consider SS any part of "socialist" or "welfare". I do consider it a total success though. Imagine the people who would be unable to retire without it.

Republicans branded it as such in the 30's. I call it a socialist program much like the European and Scandinavian have their programs. Who cares what it's called, what's important is it's done a lot of good.

 

[Listening]

I don't consider SS any part of "socialist" or "welfare". I do consider it a total success though. Imagine the people who would be unable to retire without it.

Republicans branded it as such in the 30's. I call it a socialist program much like the European and Scandinavian have their programs. Who cares what it's called, what's important is it's done a lot of good.

And what good would that be ?

Please don't respond with the usual crap.

 

[jasonnfree]

I don't consider SS any part of "socialist" or "welfare". I do consider it a total success though. Imagine the people who would be unable to retire without it.

Republicans branded it as such in the 30's. I call it a socialist program much like the European and Scandinavian have their programs. Who cares what it's called, what's important is it's done a lot of good.

And what good would that be ?

Please don't respond with the usual crap.

What good would what be you ask What is the what you refer to? I have to know what you are talking about. Tell me what the usual crap is so I can avoid upsetting you even though it wasn't you I was responding to. Damn, where do you right wingers get all your hate from? Go get laid or drunk or something.

 

[Listening]

I don't consider SS any part of "socialist" or "welfare". I do consider it a total success though. Imagine the people who would be unable to retire without it.

Republicans branded it as such in the 30's. I call it a socialist program much like the European and Scandinavian have their programs. Who cares what it's called, what's important is it's done a lot of good.

And what good would that be ?

Please don't respond with the usual crap.

What good would what be you ask What is the what you refer to? I have to know what you are talking about. Tell me what the usual crap is so I can avoid upsetting you even though it wasn't you I was responding to. Damn, where do you right wingers get all your hate from? Go get laid or drunk or something.

You said it's done a lot of good.

I am asking what that is.

Please don't say "it allowed people to retire".

The question still stands.

 

[rdean]

I love it when delusional Republicans start these kinds of posts. Remember, GOP governors go to Blue States looking for skilled liberals to come to Red States and work because Republicans are simply too stupid to learn anything complicated.

 

[edthecynic]

Had a conservative been president during the Cuban missile crisis the world would have never made it.

ROFLMNAO!

A conservative WAS President during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A conservative was president during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Idiot.

A perfect example of just how bankrupt CON$ervofascism is, CON$ must deny Bush was a CON$ervoFascist and adopt the Liberal JFK.

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

 

[edthecynic]

You're conflating "Liberal", which is to say 'one who advocates for individual LIBERTY', with a socialist, 'one who contests individual liberty'.

Jack Kennedy would have beat you into a blood stain before he would allow you to claim any kinship with him. Bad back notwithstanding.

 

[edthecynic]

Social conservatives hated him because he was a philanderer and was an unfit role model as president. They didn't oppose his push for tax cuts or his opposition to communism and stand for national strength on a global scale.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I love it when delusional Republicans start these kinds of posts. Remember, GOP governors go to Blue States looking for skilled liberals to come to Red States and work because Republicans are simply too stupid to learn anything complicated.

Is the Left lying again? Idaho Governor Butch Otter sent open invitations to Washington and Oregon for ENTIRE BUSINESSES to move to Idaho to escape the tax and regulation tyranny of the blue states they were in. Of course the demonic Left would find a way to twist this into something else. But it's no different than New York's new effort to attract new business by suckering them in with 10 years of tax breaks, after which they'll pay dearly for doing business in New York like everyone else does.

 

[Paperman299]

What does any of that matter? If [JFK] had listened to [Americans] during the Cuban missile crisis we would be long dead, which was my original comment that you have done nothing to refute.

Nonsense. JFK took a hard line... the Soviets blinked first. As the Soviets had the most to lose... . We learned after the fall of the Soviet Union that Soviet Nuclear capability had been grossly exaggerated. Had they launched everything they had at the US, we'd have lost, in the worst case scenario, a few million people, with insignificant losses to infrastructure. The Soviet Union however would have been annihilated.

The net result would have been the total erasure of the Ideological Left in the United States and the soviet subversion of the US would have been stopped in its tracks.

The US would never have elected Carter, thus no subversion of the Iranian Shaw, therefore no Rise of Islam and with no US infiltration by soviet communism, there'd be no Chicago communist machine therefore no William the Bubba, and No soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus no 9-11-01 and there'd have been no Leftist undermining of the Financial Markets, thus no collapse of the financial markets in 08 and no obama... .

It might not even be worth it to respond to something so crazy, but you have to take a second and see how outlandish and cruel that position is. You've outlined this clean domino effect that leads to the political utopia you want. But the sheer number of variables that would be changed by the country surviving nuclear war makes it impossible to predict that. Did you stop to think of the cultural shock? How many important cultural players would be too changed or too dead to make their mark?

Also, the Soviet Union had over 200 million people living in it at that time. If you had a time machine, you would seriously be okay with annihilating that population for a nebulous shot at disabling your political opposition?

You're crazy.

Are you some false flag guy, some anti-right wing troll spending his afternoons chipping away at conservative credibility on message boards? Because that would actually make more sense, and even that guy I would respect more.

You know, I think the reason your nightmarish alternate reality irks me so much is that it is so focused on eliminating things. No this, no that, and now we have the Aynrandia we deserve. I'll have to keep thinking about this, but that just seems so directly reflective of the conservative ideological direction right now. We'll cut welfare; we'll cut benefits; we'll cut taxes; we'll cut government (they say); no affirmative action, no "political correctness," no gun research, no marriage rights for homosexuals. It's like we have a half-finished cabin in the woods, and the loudest conservatives keep insisting on knocking things down...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What does any of that matter? If [JFK] had listened to [Americans] during the Cuban missile crisis we would be long dead, which was my original comment that you have done nothing to refute.

Nonsense. JFK took a hard line... the Soviets blinked first. As the Soviets had the most to lose... . We learned after the fall of the Soviet Union that Soviet Nuclear capability had been grossly exaggerated. Had they launched everything they had at the US, we'd have lost, in the worst case scenario, a few million people, with insignificant losses to infrastructure. The Soviet Union however would have been annihilated.

The net result would have been the total erasure of the Ideological Left in the United States and the soviet subversion of the US would have been stopped in its tracks.

The US would never have elected Carter, thus no subversion of the Iranian Shaw, therefore no Rise of Islam and with no US infiltration by soviet communism, there'd be no Chicago communist machine therefore no William the Bubba, and No soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus no 9-11-01 and there'd have been no Leftist undermining of the Financial Markets, thus no collapse of the financial markets in 08 and no obama... .

It might not even be worth it to respond to something so crazy, but you have to take a second and see how outlandish and cruel that position is. You've outlined this clean domino effect that leads to the political utopia you want. But the sheer number of variables that would be changed by the country surviving nuclear war makes it impossible to predict that. Did you stop to think of the cultural shock? How many important cultural players would be too changed or too dead to make their mark?

Also, the Soviet Union had over 200 million people living in it at that time. If you had a time machine, you would seriously be okay with annihilating that population for a nebulous shot at disabling your political opposition?

You're crazy.

So you're saying that one can't guarantee the outcome, while pointing out that such is impossible to predict? Which by default leaves the possibility for my theory wide open. Which I gotta say, is BRILLIANT! Refute your own argument in advance! That's a real time saver.

And, you're wondering if I would be worried about the citizens of a country that sent nukes into the United States?

LOL! All of the computer on earth, if tied together and setup with a programmed that could maximize their efficiency to utter perfection, could not measure how little I cared about the loss of life of every single leftist on this planet. And if you're wondering, That's exactly how I feel about the Muslim problem. To the last man woman and child... there is no a scintilla of concern.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you some false flag guy, some anti-right wing troll spending his afternoons chipping away at conservative credibility on message boards? Because that would actually make more sense, and even that guy I would respect more.

So you uh... you figure that conservative credibility is chipped because I noted that the Soviet Nuclear threat was over-estimated and that is why the Soviets blinked first, and pulled their missiles out of Cuba?

I suppose you're entitled to you feelings, but I honestly don't see the potential for much damage.

[QUOTE="Paperman299]You know, I think the reason your nightmarish alternate reality irks me so much is that it is so focused on eliminating things.[/quote]

The only thing I've advocated eliminating is unsound reasoning... . What's the downside to that?

[QUOTE="Paperman299] No this, no that, and now we have the Aynrandia we deserve. I'll have to keep thinking about this, but that just seems so directly reflective of the conservative ideological direction right now. We'll cut welfare; we'll cut benefits; we'll cut taxes; we'll cut government (they say); no affirmative action, no "political correctness," no gun research, no marriage rights for homosexuals. It's like we have a half-finished cabin in the woods, and the loudest conservatives keep insisting on knocking things down...[/QUOTE]

OH! So you're an adherent to unsound reasoning? Well, I can see how my advocacy would be problematic for ya...