None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[The Gadfly]

My dog has produced more shovel ready projects than Obama.

The Pet industry thanks you...

*yawn*

That's a whole bunch of typing signifying nothing.

The only thing you typed worth mentioning was the last line: "Government must learn fiscal discipline!"

The rest is your rabid hatred of Obama at the pleasure of the Republican party. Grow a pair...think for yourself...and stop fixating on Obama.

You failed to address any of the points I listed. Why? Because you can't.
See there's a lot that I don't like about Obama...so unlike you...I'm not a biased shill.
But he's not the anti-capitalist you claim he is. Not that I think anyone will ever wake you from your hate-filled stupor. Just to let you know, people like me see through your bullshit.

And feel free to pooperscoop after yourself. It's the personally responsible thing to do.

I'm sure there's a lot about Obama you don't like; even he isn't radical enough to suit you! You gave it away with that claim that because Obama hasn't nationalized industry yet, he can't be a "socialist". In your scheme of things doing anything short of that, including redistributing income (other people's income, not your own, of course) is OK because "it's not TECHNICALLY socialist". You know and I know that the goal of the American Left for the last fifty years has been to introduce socialism by degrees until you finally have the authoritarian, socialist state your little Bolshevik hearts desire. It's been openly stated, many times over.That is your goal, that's the democrat party's goal, and we all know it, so you can stop pretending otherwise! YOU, a "centrist"? Well, you can call yourself what you wish; you can also call a mule a horse, until hell freezes over, but at the end of the day, it's still a mule, and you're still a liberal! let me guess, you're an academic, who no doubt spends more time brainwashing students with Leftist claptrap, than actually educating them. Figures.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Pet industry thanks you...

*yawn*

That's a whole bunch of typing signifying nothing.

The only thing you typed worth mentioning was the last line: "Government must learn fiscal discipline!"

The rest is your rabid hatred of Obama at the pleasure of the Republican party. Grow a pair...think for yourself...and stop fixating on Obama.

You failed to address any of the points I listed. Why? Because you can't.
See there's a lot that I don't like about Obama...so unlike you...I'm not a biased shill.
But he's not the anti-capitalist you claim he is. Not that I think anyone will ever wake you from your hate-filled stupor. Just to let you know, people like me see through your bullshit.

And feel free to pooperscoop after yourself. It's the personally responsible thing to do.

I'm sure there's a lot about Obama you don't like; even he isn't radical enough to suit you! You gave it away with that claim that because Obama hasn't nationalized industry yet, he can't be a "socialist". In your scheme of things doing anything short of that, including redistributing income (other people's income, not your own, of course) is OK because "it's not TECHNICALLY socialist". You know and I know that the goal of the American Left for the last fifty years has been to introduce socialism by degrees until you finally have the authoritarian, socialist state your little Bolshevik hearts desire. It's been openly stated, many times over.That is your goal, that's the democrat party's goal, and we all know it, so you can stop pretending otherwise! YOU, a "centrist"? Well, you can call yourself what you wish; you can also call a mule a horse, until hell freezes over, but at the end of the day, it's still a mule, and you're still a liberal! let me guess, you're an academic, who no doubt spends more time brainwashing students with Leftist claptrap, than actually educating them. Figures.

You're supposition is pathetic.

 

[MikeK]

Let's clarify that Mike. Cutting through the pejorative language you use reveals that you advocate someone who has NO (as in zip zilch, ZERO) financial stake in America, should have the same or more say in governing the country, as those who foot the bill. They should be able to vote themselves whatever they want from someone else's pocket, anytime they are the majority. That's the natural result of a pure democracy-the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly why the founders made America a REPUBLIC, instead. I like this idea better: if you receive government subsidies, for yourself, the business you own, if you are on welfare, or Social Security, or medicaid, or if you get your pay from the federal government, YOU don't get to vote in Federal elections. Those who get similar from the state don't get to vote in state elections. Those who actually pay the bills, get to decide how to spend the money. Sounds entirely fair to me!

So you think because I receive Social Security and I'm covered by Medicare I should not be eligible to vote for a congressman or a president.

The impression I have is you are past 65, therefore you should be receiving Social Security and have a Medicare card. Although you presumably have been contributing to FICA and paying Medicare taxes do you believe you don't deserve those benefits, or that if you accept them you should not be allowed to vote?

I wonder how many others agree with you.

 

[MikeK]

I worked for a guy who became a billionaire, he's on Forbes list and has been there for several years now. It was the best experience of my life.

First of all, he had the most unbeatable, winning, infectious "Can do" attitude of anyone I ever met. He started with an idea and a few borrowed dollar. Besides making himself rich, he's probably made at least 5,000 other people millionaires -- and I'm not exaggerating and probably underestimated by a few thousand.

You need to get familiar with wealthy people, know them, see what they're like.

[...]

The rather clichèd Horatio Alger anecdote you've provided seems to presume that the wish to accumulate boundless wealth is universal but I can assure you it is not. I've come to believe that most if not all those who reflexively toss out the "envy" accusation at those who resent excessive wealth are greed oriented and are thus incapable of understanding or believing that many if not most others wish or expect no more from life than a modestly comfortable (middle class) existence.

In my own example, my aspiration for wealth extends as far as the $30 ticket I play in the Australian Lottery every Christmas. Aside from that my leisure time is much too valuable to waste doing whatever it takes to accumulate great sums of money, which I really don't need to be happy and comfortable. Which I already am.

My parents survived the Great Depression. For them, and as they diligently taught us, a warm, comfortable home, food on the table and good health are all one needs to be happy -- provided one is not haunted by the demons of greed and gluttony. Which I am not.

I have a generous civil service pension, Social Security, Medicare and a nice stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. My home and car are paid for. I am not rich by some standards but I am very rich by others. And I know that, because rich is a relative condition. I have absolutely no need for millions of dollars, nor would I care to sacrifice my valuable leisure time in pursuit of more money than I need to be comfortable and happy. Which I am. And I am not at all unique in this orientation.

But I do very strongly resent the greedy bastards whose insatiable hunger for excessive wealth has resulted in the misery of so many ordinary Americans whose jobs, pensions and homes have been taken from them by the scheming maneuvers of those who figured out how to "fix" and exploit the System.

I don't envy those gluttonous people. I despise them. I'm not alone in that state of mind. And your apparent inability to understand that says more about you than you know.

In essence than, you hate anyone with more ambition, leadership, ability, and willingness to take risks, than you have. In fact, you hate them so much, that you want what they have achieved taken from them and their families, and given to others who lack the requisite personal qualities for achievement themselves.

I started with no more advantages than you, but even with the late start I got because I chose to serve my country, I have achieved far more than your stated achievement. I don't begrudge that late start; among other things the leadership and discipline I learned have served me well in civilian life. Leadership has economic value, discipline makes it easier to defer gratification, and save and invest what you might spend; and when one has faced death, repeatedly, a little financial risk is not so frightening a thing. You may hate me, you may resent me, but I have done nothing more sinister nor criminal than take advantage of the skills and opportunities life has presented me. I haven't always won; I've lost, as well, but I've won more than I lost. A free society rewards those who risk capital; it's fundamental economics. Your problem is that you can't stand the idea of someone having more than someone else, but you can never have that in any society other than a command economy (no matter what you CALL it). There's always going to be someone smarter, stronger, better, or more disciplined than most of the herd; and given any kind of economic freedom they will rise above the rest. That will happen, no matter how much the herd revels in mediocrity, and scorns achievement.

Some people find riches more easily and quickly than others; some are born with the proverbial silver spoon, some have athletic or artistic talent; why, many of them make more in a year than I will ever make. Do I envy them? Do I hate them? Do I think it should be taken away from them? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I might as well hate my neighbor, because he won the lottery. No, the problem with your concept of "fairness", is that life itself is not "fair", the real world is not "fair", but you have the moral and intellectual arrogance to presume that society should be remade in the SUPPOSED perfection of your own image. Well, the truth is, that you are NOT my moral or intellectual superior (though that presumption of "superiority" (a rather smug one at that) is a common failing among the Left). I believe in rewarding merit; you believe in rewarding those who share your moral and political beliefs. Hateful? I hate only those who wish to steal what I have honestly earned; you, on the other hand, hate anyone who has more than you think he "needs". Who the hell are YOU, to decide that? Who made you GOD? Who made YOU the arbiter of what's "fair"? No, I'm afraid you and your fellow Leftists have tried to appoint yourselves to that position, a position you have done nothing to earn. and for which you are no better qualified than anyone else, including me.

I don't know how you derived the idea that I hate you but I really think you could benefit considerably from the daily use of marijuana. You don't need to smoke it if you know someone who can bake a nice carrot cake for you once a week or so. I promise it will bring about a very pleasant change in what seems to be a rather miserable existence.

Again, I don't hate you. But I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.

 

[bripat9643]

So you think because I receive Social Security and I'm covered by Medicare I should not be eligible to vote for a congressman or a president.

That's right. People collecting Social Security should not be allowed to vote for the same reason that the CEO of a corporation should not be allowed to determine his own compensation. We already know beforehand that both decisions will not be made for the benefit of anyone except the people making them.

 

[Bfgrn]

I had this argument with a bleeding-heart liberal yesterday at the coffee my social club holds every other Sunday. She started in with "It's unfair that 80% of the wealth is held by" whatever tiny portion of the population she used, I forget what. She looked completely nonplussed when my response was, "Why? WHY is it 'unfair'?" I guess she thought it should just go without explanation.

I continued: Is it not also unfair for one person to do everything necessary to become a millionaire, and another to do none of that, and yet both of them have the same share of the wealth generated? She started stammering at that point.

Then I said, "Let me put it this way. Do you have a house?" Of course she didn't. She's a 23-year-old college student. "So you rent a little apartment instead. What kind of car do you drive?" It's an old beater her parents gave her. "Do you have any sort of savings or investments or retirement accounts?" Again, I knew she didn't, because she's a 23-year-old college student. "Well, I have a house, and a nice car, and all that stuff. Is it fair that I have those things, and you don't?"

Her answer: Well, yeah, I mean, you're a lot older than I am.

Exactly. I had already done all the things necessary to accumulate the extra wealth that I had and she didn't. Maybe in the same amount of time, she'll do those things too, and have the same things I have now. Or maybe she won't. Either way, it suddenly wasn't "unfair" when we were talking about a real person she knew and could see, instead of nameless, faceless "rich people".

The truth is that when we talk about the majority of wealth being in the hands of a minority of the population, we're usually talking about people over a certain age. There's nothing unfair about it when looked at that way, because they spent a long time working for it and acquiring it, and they weren't always in the "haves" column.

Could I have made other decisions and been a billionaire? I dunno, but I can certainly identify decisions that, made differently, would have meant I had a lot more wealth now than I do. I'm okay with the fact that my life and wealth are what they are due to my own choices, and I neither begrudge nor wish to punish others for having made different choices.

she's a 23 year old college student. More than likely she's been handed the liberal view on these matters all of her school aged life. She's been taught to expect things. She's been told she is entitled. She's been told that people of means are unfair and greedy and have so compassion for the less fortunate. I have a niece who was a college student and a flaming liberal. She thought all these things. Now that she's earned her degree has to pay for things such as housing transportation, etc, she no longer tows the liberal line. As a matter of fact she's a very bright person but still had to ask me why her friends from college don;t talk to her anymore. I told her very simply that some of them have kept their political leanings while yours have swung right. The people you once shared your liberalism with have no tolerance for any other viewpoint.
My niece now knows she has to go out and earn the things she needs and wants.

What a huge pile of horseshit. I am liberal, my parents NEVER said I was entitled to anything. You right wing turds seem to believe that the law of the jungle should apply. That is not a civil society.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[NoNukes]

RDean - we know why you defend Socialism. You don't want your Food Stamps taken away from you. Don't worry, once Perry is elected, people of your ilk will be cut off at the knees.

When Perry is elected, NOTHING will happen.

 

[bodhisattva]

The only people I see who are dependent on the government are on social security or military pensions.

Which one of those are you going to cut off?

Total Bullshit and you know it.

The Fed Govt employees, and there are probably millions of them, have fat pensions that would stagger the minds of most workers.

Then you have the State Govt employees. Add some more scores of millions to the above.

Plus, double or triple the scores of State employees to consider the City Govt employees.

All of the above with huge pensions that other workers can only dream about !!!

And, the above doesn't even consider some unions and a few private corporations that have pensions.

You Chris, are a fucking unconscionable liar trying to obfuscate these obvious facts.

But then, you learn "arrogance in lying" from a great teacher: Obama.

 

[Article 15]

Let's clarify that Mike. Cutting through the pejorative language you use reveals that you advocate someone who has NO (as in zip zilch, ZERO) financial stake in America, should have the same or more say in governing the country, as those who foot the bill. They should be able to vote themselves whatever they want from someone else's pocket, anytime they are the majority. That's the natural result of a pure democracy-the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly why the founders made America a REPUBLIC, instead. I like this idea better: if you receive government subsidies, for yourself, the business you own, if you are on welfare, or Social Security, or medicaid, or if you get your pay from the federal government, YOU don't get to vote in Federal elections. Those who get similar from the state don't get to vote in state elections. Those who actually pay the bills, get to decide how to spend the money. Sounds entirely fair to me!

I agree!

The military shouldn't have the right to vote

 

[editec]

The Pet industry thanks you...

*yawn*

That's a whole bunch of typing signifying nothing.

The only thing you typed worth mentioning was the last line: "Government must learn fiscal discipline!"

The rest is your rabid hatred of Obama at the pleasure of the Republican party. Grow a pair...think for yourself...and stop fixating on Obama.

You failed to address any of the points I listed. Why? Because you can't.
See there's a lot that I don't like about Obama...so unlike you...I'm not a biased shill.
But he's not the anti-capitalist you claim he is. Not that I think anyone will ever wake you from your hate-filled stupor. Just to let you know, people like me see through your bullshit.

And feel free to pooperscoop after yourself. It's the personally responsible thing to do.

I'm sure there's a lot about Obama you don't like; even he isn't radical enough to suit you! You gave it away with that claim that because Obama hasn't nationalized industry yet, he can't be a "socialist". In your scheme of things doing anything short of that, including redistributing income (other people's income, not your own, of course) is OK because "it's not TECHNICALLY socialist". You know and I know that the goal of the American Left for the last fifty years has been to introduce socialism by degrees until you finally have the authoritarian, socialist state your little Bolshevik hearts desire. It's been openly stated, many times over.That is your goal, that's the democrat party's goal, and we all know it, so you can stop pretending otherwise! YOU, a "centrist"? Well, you can call yourself what you wish; you can also call a mule a horse, until hell freezes over, but at the end of the day, it's still a mule, and you're still a liberal! let me guess, you're an academic, who no doubt spends more time brainwashing students with Leftist claptrap, than actually educating them. Figures.

Here, Ladies and Gents is a rather perfect example of neo-American KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

Note that not only is that poster ignorant, but he actually revels in his ignorance and loathes anybody who isn't wallowing in his brand of ignorance.

He's a perfect example of today's US political partisan.

Ignorant and proud of his ignorance.

Envious of those who are educated, likely uneducable himself, he seeks to attack those who actually KNOW anything at all.

Political faith-based morons.

This board if overwhelmed by them.

 

[Vanquish]

The Pet industry thanks you...

*yawn*

That's a whole bunch of typing signifying nothing.

The only thing you typed worth mentioning was the last line: "Government must learn fiscal discipline!"

The rest is your rabid hatred of Obama at the pleasure of the Republican party. Grow a pair...think for yourself...and stop fixating on Obama.

You failed to address any of the points I listed. Why? Because you can't.
See there's a lot that I don't like about Obama...so unlike you...I'm not a biased shill.
But he's not the anti-capitalist you claim he is. Not that I think anyone will ever wake you from your hate-filled stupor. Just to let you know, people like me see through your bullshit.

And feel free to pooperscoop after yourself. It's the personally responsible thing to do.

I'm sure there's a lot about Obama you don't like; even he isn't radical enough to suit you! You gave it away with that claim that because Obama hasn't nationalized industry yet, he can't be a "socialist". In your scheme of things doing anything short of that, including redistributing income (other people's income, not your own, of course) is OK because "it's not TECHNICALLY socialist". You know and I know that the goal of the American Left for the last fifty years has been to introduce socialism by degrees until you finally have the authoritarian, socialist state your little Bolshevik hearts desire. It's been openly stated, many times over.That is your goal, that's the democrat party's goal, and we all know it, so you can stop pretending otherwise! YOU, a "centrist"? Well, you can call yourself what you wish; you can also call a mule a horse, until hell freezes over, but at the end of the day, it's still a mule, and you're still a liberal! let me guess, you're an academic, who no doubt spends more time brainwashing students with Leftist claptrap, than actually educating them. Figures.

Dude, you know zilch about me. Your little holier-than-thou attitude makes you sound like a prick.

1. I'm pro-life.
2. I'm pro-gun. Assault rifle even.
3. I'm a hardliner on immigration. There's only a few legal ways to get here. That's it.
4. I'm for reducing the size of government whenever possible.

I could go on...but your thickheadded ass wouldn't let it penetrate.

"You know and I know"...WTF dude. You and I don't know. Well pardon me. Let me correct that. You don't know. Is there a socialist party who would love to gain control of America? Sure. Is that what the entire left wants to do? Fuck no.

At least you did latch on (in part) to the crux of socialism...nationalization of industry. And "you know and I know" that he's not "technically socialist". Glad you could admit that to yourself.

What a partisan shill. When presented with someone in the middle, someone you might be able to move more towards your way of thinking...what do you do? You're an idiot and you insult that person away from you. God people like you are a waste of forum space. This board is 99% partisan shills screaming at each other and deluding themselves that they're "winning!" (For fuck's sake...Charlie Sheen's crack-addicted ass has been "winning" more than the people on this forum.)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

....And, well-documented.....

The Jungle

"Upton Sinclair originally intended to expose "the inferno of exploitation [of the typical American factory worker at the turn of the 20th Century]," but the reading public instead fixated on food safety as the novel's most pressing issue. In fact, Sinclair bitterly admitted his celebrity rose, "not because the public cared anything about the workers, but simply because the public did not want to eat tubercular beef".

Sinclair's account of workers falling into rendering tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions, as well as the exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed showed the corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories."​

WARNING
(For Teabaggers)

This book contains many words that exceed 5 letters.​

 

[Article 15]

*yawn*

That's a whole bunch of typing signifying nothing.

The only thing you typed worth mentioning was the last line: "Government must learn fiscal discipline!"

The rest is your rabid hatred of Obama at the pleasure of the Republican party. Grow a pair...think for yourself...and stop fixating on Obama.

You failed to address any of the points I listed. Why? Because you can't.
See there's a lot that I don't like about Obama...so unlike you...I'm not a biased shill.
But he's not the anti-capitalist you claim he is. Not that I think anyone will ever wake you from your hate-filled stupor. Just to let you know, people like me see through your bullshit.

And feel free to pooperscoop after yourself. It's the personally responsible thing to do.

I'm sure there's a lot about Obama you don't like; even he isn't radical enough to suit you! You gave it away with that claim that because Obama hasn't nationalized industry yet, he can't be a "socialist". In your scheme of things doing anything short of that, including redistributing income (other people's income, not your own, of course) is OK because "it's not TECHNICALLY socialist". You know and I know that the goal of the American Left for the last fifty years has been to introduce socialism by degrees until you finally have the authoritarian, socialist state your little Bolshevik hearts desire. It's been openly stated, many times over.That is your goal, that's the democrat party's goal, and we all know it, so you can stop pretending otherwise! YOU, a "centrist"? Well, you can call yourself what you wish; you can also call a mule a horse, until hell freezes over, but at the end of the day, it's still a mule, and you're still a liberal! let me guess, you're an academic, who no doubt spends more time brainwashing students with Leftist claptrap, than actually educating them. Figures.

Dude, you know zilch about me. Your little holier-than-thou attitude makes you sound like a prick.

1. I'm pro-life.
2. I'm pro-gun. Assault rifle even.
3. I'm a hardliner on immigration. There's only a few legal ways to get here. That's it.
4. I'm for reducing the size of government whenever possible.

I could go on...but your thickheadded ass wouldn't let it penetrate.

"You know and I know"...WTF dude. You and I don't know. Well pardon me. Let me correct that. You don't know. Is there a socialist party who would love to gain control of America? Sure. Is that what the entire left wants to do? Fuck no.

At least you did latch on (in part) to the crux of socialism...nationalization of industry. And "you know and I know" that he's not "technically socialist". Glad you could admit that to yourself.

What a partisan shill. When presented with someone in the middle, someone you might be able to move more towards your way of thinking...what do you do? You're an idiot and you insult that person away from you. God people like you are a waste of forum space. This board is 99% partisan shills screaming at each other and deluding themselves that they're "winning!" (For fuck's sake...Charlie Sheen's crack-addicted ass has been "winning" more than the people on this forum.)

lol

Damn.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"You know and I know"...WTF dude. You and I don't know. Well pardon me. Let me correct that. You don't know.

Ya' can't (totally) blame the Teabaggers for their (assumed) "knowledge". It's a direct-result o' their mushroom-existence**.

When they hear John Boner suggesting, "The American people want..."....or, "The American people think..."....or, "The American people say..."....the 'Baggers accept whatever follows as gospel, because....being part of the majority is much-more important, to them, than being right/correct. It works the same in any lynch-mob.

**Fed bullshit....kept in the dark.

 

[uscitizen]

If you knew as much about socialism as you claim, you'd be opposed to seeing it here in the US.
Look genius, for most people this is not a personal issue regarding Obama.
We oppose his policies and ideology. It is your side that has had to resort to hanging it's hat on the race/hate angle.

obama is not even close to being a socialist...not even in the ballpark


unless you're a neocon whackjob....

..are you a neocon whackjob?

Really? How would you label a person who believes big government/central planning, ownership of wealth, high taxes, socialized medicine, deficit spending with no earthly way to repay debt, no respect or interest in the private sector, high energy costs, larger and more social spending programs, etc?.....Obama is all of these things. Yes, perfect examples of a freedom and liberty loving patriotic American.
Please. Obama is a fucking Bolshevik. It is his desire to see as many people dependent on government as possible.
Now,,try asking a legitimate question ....or fuck off. I have no time for bullshit childish games.

You of course did not support Bush nor his republican controlled congress?
And also think Reagan was a lousy president?

They both did what you speak against.

 

[thereisnospoon]

obama is not even close to being a socialist...not even in the ballpark


unless you're a neocon whackjob....

..are you a neocon whackjob?

Really? How would you label a person who believes big government/central planning, ownership of wealth, high taxes, socialized medicine, deficit spending with no earthly way to repay debt, no respect or interest in the private sector, high energy costs, larger and more social spending programs, etc?.....Obama is all of these things. Yes, perfect examples of a freedom and liberty loving patriotic American.
Please. Obama is a fucking Bolshevik. It is his desire to see as many people dependent on government as possible.
Now,,try asking a legitimate question ....or fuck off. I have no time for bullshit childish games.

Then why is every one of your whackjob posts full of insane shit that you can't backup?

1. Every government in the world involves central planning. Find one (in the top 100 countries that is) that doesn't and I'll buy you a lollipop. You can't. But you won't admit it.

2. Not only that, but our country has ALWAYS placed restrictions on imports and exports since the beginning of the whole country. Denying that would make you look idiotic.

3. Obama has NEVER supported taking away private property or forced work on anyone.

4. Obama has NEVER attempted to take over the means of production of the GDP. Even the auto bailout that involved the US government merely had the government in an INVESTMENT role. Not day to day operations. Today we don't own the car company either.

Fucking get a life you worthless pile of excrement. You don't know the meaning of socialist (as proven by your supposed examples) and you should have all access to the internet revoked...as it's making you even MORE stupid.

Yeah yeah yeah....You obviously have a different view of what Central Planning is other than the true definition. Central planning is where government maintains total control of economy, movement of the people in and out of country as well as inside country. Controls all industry all banking all communication and media. central planning is a virtual totalitarian regime. Venezuela's government is an example of Central Planning.
I never stated our government has no restrictions/rules on import and export. If you can find where I stated or implied that, you can have the lollipop you owe me,back.
BTW..NEVER start a sentence with "not only that"....That phrase is used in continuance of an idea. Please.
I never stated Obama was going to take away property or force work on anyone. Again. You are making up things as you go along.
Obama is not a proponent or a friend to the private sector. He believes the answers to poor economy and other factors is larger government and more government employment. He is a proponent of bureaucracy. He thinks job creation's highest and best use is in the public sector. That's a fact. You need only look to see where most of the stimulus money went.
It is well documented that the GM and Chrysler bailouts were payback to the UAW for their support in the 2008 election.
Fact, Chrysler is no longer technically an American company. It is owned at least in part by Fiat of Italy.
GM ended up declaring bankruptcy anyway and now the UAW owns the company. The reason why John and Jane Q Taxpayer are no longer owners of GM is because GM has never been and never will be obligated to pay back the bailout money.
As far as I am concerned none of these companies including Goldman Sachs and the other investment firms should have been able to declare bankruptcy, restructure and start anew.
But no....The politicians saw their gravy train of DNC and RNC money going down the dark path and no way could they have that.
Now as far as your parting shot....Why? Becaube I have the nerve to have a differing opinion than you?
Are my set of facts less worthy because they do not tow the Liberal line?
This is typical of you libs. You are intolerant to the core.
I am taking the high road and not return the insult.
I could rip you a new asshole, but I reserve my best stuff for worthy opponents. You are easy. Have a nice day. Done.

 

[thereisnospoon]

obama is not even close to being a socialist...not even in the ballpark


unless you're a neocon whackjob....

..are you a neocon whackjob?

Really? How would you label a person who believes big government/central planning, ownership of wealth, high taxes, socialized medicine, deficit spending with no earthly way to repay debt, no respect or interest in the private sector, high energy costs, larger and more social spending programs, etc?.....Obama is all of these things. Yes, perfect examples of a freedom and liberty loving patriotic American.
Please. Obama is a fucking Bolshevik. It is his desire to see as many people dependent on government as possible.
Now,,try asking a legitimate question ....or fuck off. I have no time for bullshit childish games.

You of course did not support Bush nor his republican controlled congress?
And also think Reagan was a lousy president?

They both did what you speak against.

Really? Facts please....
Oh...BTW Bush 43 was no conservative. He was a big spending populist.
If you remember correctly, Bush's first campaign platform strategy was to "steal" democrat supported issues and implement them, which he did.
As far as the rest of your silly post...You're just shouting random thoughts out of sheer frustration.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is well documented that the GM and Chrysler bailouts were payback to the UAW for their support in the 2008 election.
Fact, Chrysler is no longer technically an American company. It is owned at least in part by Fiat of Italy.
GM ended up declaring bankruptcy anyway and now the UAW owns the company.

Yeah....that was the.....

....end-result.

Do you "conservatives" EVER get tired o' being WRONG?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Really? How would you label a person who believes big government/central planning, ownership of wealth, high taxes, socialized medicine, deficit spending with no earthly way to repay debt, no respect or interest in the private sector, high energy costs, larger and more social spending programs, etc?.....Obama is all of these things. Yes, perfect examples of a freedom and liberty loving patriotic American.
Please. Obama is a fucking Bolshevik. It is his desire to see as many people dependent on government as possible.
Now,,try asking a legitimate question ....or fuck off. I have no time for bullshit childish games.

You of course did not support Bush nor his republican controlled congress?
And also think Reagan was a lousy president?

They both did what you speak against.

If you remember correctly, Bush's first campaign platform strategy was to "steal" democrat supported issues and implement them....

....And, you merely forgot to post proof of that.

(Another o' those "Everybody knows...."-factoids, no doubt.)​

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is well documented that the GM and Chrysler bailouts were payback to the UAW for their support in the 2008 election.
Fact, Chrysler is no longer technically an American company. It is owned at least in part by Fiat of Italy.
GM ended up declaring bankruptcy anyway and now the UAW owns the company.

Yeah....that was the.....

....end-result.

Do you "conservatives" EVER get tired o' being WRONG?

Just because you use BIG FONT does not make your insignificant post more meaningful.
In fact it intensifies the inaccuracy of them.