|
|
Post by MO on Feb 10, 2004 14:33:27 GMT -5
You know what? I really don't care about the ramblings of you and other people claiming you are "offended" by partisan remarks on this board. Look at the name on the top of this forum. If you are offended, go somewhere else. I'm not going to pretend like I give a flying fig about the people I believe to be hell bent on destroying this country, or their useful idiot, sheep like followers. The Democrats laughed at Joe McCarthy, but he was right! The Verona Project proved it. They have a good foothold. www.greaterthings.com/Constitution/Associates/10Marx_planks.htm |
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Feb 10, 2004 15:07:08 GMT -5
I'ts ironic that the things you accuse others of are the very things that you yourself are victim to.
If anyone is a usfull idiot it is you. The one gets all their information from the internet or talk radio. What was the last book you read MO? What level of education do you have? Because it appears you are very unknowledgable of history and political theory.
Hiding behind the title of this site does not distract us from or excuse your complete and utter disregard for/unawareness of truth. You are a brainwashed fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 10, 2004 16:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 10, 2004 17:52:23 GMT -5
Point is darling, It doesn't matter where the phrase came from, it's still ignorant and offensive. I've never heard the phrase before thats true, and unsurprising since I am not from your part of the world. But I think it sums up perfectly the 'us versus them' culture that your politicians use to control you. Seperate the world into opposite extremes of 'good and evil' and use fear of peoples differences to gain power. It's an age old tactic and unfortunatly you seem to have fallen for it. Complicity? If you see complicity between liberals and communists then that further backs up my point about you being completley stuck in your own world. Social Democracy was born out of Europe because of a need to avoid the mistakes of the past, that led to fascism, so that in the future other extremes would not take hold. 'Liberalism' as you call it is the complete antitheses to communism. That doesn't particularly make sense--the liberals are the ones calling for "redistrubuting the wealth"--e.g., they would be delighted to give Bill Gates a 99% income tax. And what do those taxes pay for? What public service does Bill Gates use? He rarely drives, preferring private jet or helicopter. He certainly isn't going to trust his family in the competence of the Seatle Police Department. No, his tax money goes into your beloved social programs, so he can support 10,000 welfare junkies. Isn't that beautiful. LBJ's "Great Society" hard at work--the rich's funds throttled from their hands to throw to the insatiable masses for a popular vote. How valiant. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 10, 2004 18:04:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Feb 10, 2004 23:14:49 GMT -5
Actually the notion of Liberals was based on Libertarianism.
What MO is talking about is today's Liberal as defined by the Democrats and Socalists.
Communism is not a political system; it's an economic system that requires total centralized control by government (the ruling elite).
Socialism is a far left concept that advocates governmental control over almost everything but still permits heavily regulated private enterprise (see, for example, Germany and France).
BTW, IWNW, "Insufferable Males" means we males aren't capable of suffering, no matter how hard women try...at least that's what my wife just explained to me. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 11, 2004 13:40:12 GMT -5
True, Walter. I was hoping we wouldn't have to get into the semantics game. We all know (I had hoped) that libertarians and modern conservatives share more of the basic tenets of classical liberalism than modern day com./liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by thought on Feb 11, 2004 13:55:34 GMT -5
MO- i wasn't kidding, i would really like to know what college you went to--is it more conservative than others??? I'm not being sarcastic at all...100% earnest. I would just like to know, because you said colleges are liberal- but I don't think you would end up at any of those ( i believe that you're hard core conservative). if you don't want to answer- thats cool too, I was just wondering which colleges were more preferable to you. And lets not redistribute wealth--so that we can end up to the days of the proletariats. It doesn't really matter anyways because the top one percent of our country holds 96 % of the money anyways. Being selfish- My friends and I can afford the best education, at the best feeder schools, and we don't really need public services, so why would we want our taxes to pay for other people's needs?? I want to keep my money for all the things I want to spend it on. If i'm nice enough I will become a philanthropist--but if I don't, too bad for you. Because then, as the generations progress-- the elite will be the smartest, the poor will be even poorer and dumber (don't put money in social programs) and the middle class with cease to exist--who needs public education when they can all just be servants for my friends and I??? Score--actually, I think everyone deserves to be smart, because the world would be a better place if everyone had a solid education and had opportunities, it would be great if everyone was intelligent. Luckily for everyone, I like being a philanthropist, but not everyone is like me. Once the proletariats are soo fed up with working for me, they might revolt and...wait, that already happened! So actually I don't mind if you take some taxes from me to keep me less afraid, and to better some social programs so that not everyone turns into an uneducated and uncultured loser...I don't want to hire losers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 11, 2004 15:23:21 GMT -5
I'm not going to tell you which college I went to. That's kind of like asking for someone's social security number or name. Most people wish to remain anonymous on-line. I will tell you that I started at a community college and moved on to a modestly priced college that you probably wouldn't recognize the name of unless you lived in my state. I worked full time and paid my own way. I spent ten years paying off student loans.
I can't really make much sense out of your post. You said everyone "deserves to be smart." Some people are dumber than a box of rocks no matter what schools they go to. If you're concerned about a good education for all, support voucher programs in k-12.
Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally unfair. It is theft.
So you are a philanthropist? What do you do that makes you consider yourself a philanthropist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Feb 11, 2004 22:06:30 GMT -5
I will answer for me, and because my positions generally, not always match those of MO, the situation may be instructive.
I graduated from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) in 1964. At the time I was a participant in many of the civil rights efforts in the South including lunch counter sit-ins.
My label could have been "liberal" although I had, generally, conservative ideas. I found that I was tested, politically, throughout school, but, being an accounting major, "Liberal faculty" caused me very few ideological issues.
I remain today a firm believer in MLK's position, which is not even close to the current Democrat position. (MLK would have decried Affirmative Action as it is currently practiced, for example.) I am also very conservative on many issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by proudmemberVRWC on Feb 12, 2004 0:32:48 GMT -5
I know I'm jumping in a bit late to this, but what on earth does this "guest" mean by "Conservative College". Is that a derogatory slam at Christian Universities? I wonder  Besides, who chooses a College based on a political motivation? Okay, maybe Berkley or Wellesley, for those overprivileged white kiddies who are already pretending to be Socialists while they mask their white liberal guilt. The rest of us, however, do not select a college that way. As for me, for both my Undergraduate and Graduate degrees, I selected Universities based on the course of study, not the political bent of the campus. When I was finished, I left the safe walls of academia, and went out to work in the real world. Most people have no clue how safe and secure it is for Libs to stay in their cocoon of University life. Professors with any ideas that do not conform, will resist at all cost the temptation to speak their minds, for fear of jeopardizing their precious tenure timeline. In the 60's, the "student revolution" fought against confomity. Yet isn't it ironoic that all these grown up "revolutionaries" now reside on college campuses bathed in the warm liberal blanket of conformity? They live to get published, in one form or another, so they can live off the dole of Government funded research grants. University life is like a permanent welfare state for the literati. But, just because some of them may read more than others, does not mean they are better educated. I know people who read all the tabloids, and every romance novel that Oprah tells them too. Does that make them "well read"? Look at the poster children and biggest mouths on the Left - a.k.a. silly celebrities. Most of them never even finished high school, let alone went to college. Yet they spout the most egregious half truths and wild conspiracy theories, and people believe them. (I'd list some here, but I do not want to be writing all night) All you need is a good PR person. Look at what Clinton's hollywood pals and PR machine did for him. It got the country to actually believe that a blowjob is not sex, just so he could walk the legal line and say he never lied. Is that education, or merely illusion? |
|
|
|
Post by thought on Feb 12, 2004 11:55:50 GMT -5
First, it was just a question, and I don't mind that you don't tell me, i completely understand. I also agree that colleges should be selected on courses of study--the best fit for the student--that's how it should be. When I looked at colleges, I did not look at the political leanings, but rather if the university was politically active, because that was very important to me. I too, will choose to stay anonymous but if you would like to know, I consider myself a philanthropist because I am a person who loves humanity, who is committed deeply to making society a better place, who believes that each individual, each dollar and each action makes a difference. I volunteer for the public good, including voluntary service, voluntary association, and voluntary giving. I also make charitable donations (my family has two foundations) to increase human well-being, but i don't believe that always relying on the private sector is the way to go. You have a good point MO--redistribution of wealth could be unfair, and I agree on some points. I just wish the trickle theory would actually work (I REALLY wish it would, to put my trust back in society)...my post might not have made sense, but it was just throwing out thoughts to discuss (seeing how this is a discussion board). And to proudmember--It was definitely not a derogatory slam, my regrets if you were offended my any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by proudmemberVRWC on Feb 12, 2004 14:44:43 GMT -5
And to proudmember--It was definitely not a derogatory slam, my regrets if you were offended by any means. That's good to know  |
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 12, 2004 22:53:51 GMT -5
First, it was just a question, and I don't mind that you don't tell me, i completely understand. I also agree that colleges should be selected on courses of study--the best fit for the student--that's how it should be. When I looked at colleges, I did not look at the political leanings, but rather if the university was politically active, because that was very important to me. I too, will choose to stay anonymous but if you would like to know, I consider myself a philanthropist because I am a person who loves humanity, who is committed deeply to making society a better place, who believes that each individual, each dollar and each action makes a difference. I volunteer for the public good, including voluntary service, voluntary association, and voluntary giving. I also make charitable donations (my family has two foundations) to increase human well-being, but i don't believe that always relying on the private sector is the way to go. You have a good point MO--redistribution of wealth could be unfair, and I agree on some points. I just wish the trickle theory would actually work (I REALLY wish it would, to put my trust back in society)...my post might not have made sense, but it was just throwing out thoughts to discuss (seeing how this is a discussion board). And to proudmember--It was definitely not a derogatory slam, my regrets if you were offended my any means. It's all well and good to give to charities, but it, in reality, makes me less inclined to do so when the liberals throttle social security taxes out of my hands simultaneously. I think money would "trickle down" more effectively if the liberal masses stopped making the upper class paranoid about spending money. |
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Feb 14, 2004 15:51:00 GMT -5
Ok, I was gunna do a point by point rebuttle of that amusingly stupid article that you linked to and If you want me to continue with it I can. But for the sake of time saving I have just done a partial one.
Leaving aside for now the religious extremism and incitement to violence (“On that day you should take out your gun and kill as many Communist Liberals as you can find”) that this article is bathed in, I will attempt to tackle each ‘point’ individually.
The central claim of the piece is that all 10 measures outlined in the Communist
Manifesto, for the preparation of society for Communism, have been either fully or partially met in the United States today.
“1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. – Communist Manifesto [CM]
We already have this in America. Through property taxes we have been made serfs on our own land. Through tyrannical zoning laws, wetlands regulations, EPA regulations, etc., we no longer control our lands. Our once strong private property rights have been abolished through regulatory oppression, bureaucratic tyranny and unbiblical types of taxation. – Greater Things [GT]”<br>
Putting it bluntly, this is just a lie. Individuals and private companies are allowed to freely sell and buy land as they wish. Apart from national parks and reserves, the whole land mass of the US is privately owned or available for purchase.
The equation of property tax to the ‘application of ALL land rents to public purposes’ is weak as the two are quite clearly different. One is state ownership, the other is private ownership with taxation. Two distinct situations.
“2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. – [CM]
We already have this in America. The higher your income, the higher the tax bracket you are placed in for purposes of calculating your tax bill. This is completely evil and unBiblical. The Bible Teaches us the principle of the Flat Tax when it requires that everyone is to pay a Tithe (1/10) of their produce to the Lord. God did not say that the poor only pay 5% and the wealthy are to pay 25%. God said everyone rich or poor, pays the same percentage. Why do liberals pretend to want to tax the wealthy more? Because it advances their program for fomenting class envy and class warfare. Divide and conquer, that is the strategy of the evil communist liberals who are wrecking America with ever higher taxes and increasingly bigger government.” – [GT]
The only truth that can be found in this statement is in the first sentence. Yes it is true that a graduated income tax exists but no rational attempt is made by the author to address WHY this policy is in place.
The claim that progressive taxation is merely a tactic to ‘divide and rule’ is incorrect. The reason for it lies in ones analysis of the market and whether or not it is able to provide equal opportunity and efficient resource allocation representative of an individuals input into the production process.
Whilst I am personally against the graduated tax in favor of a flat tax, the debate about whether or not it can be justified is probably best left to another thread devoted specifically to that. The point I am making is that the author has made no attempt at tackling the GENUINE reasons that ‘liberals’ give for this policy. He merely invents a conspiracy intended to emotionalize the reader against his pariah.
“3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
We already have this in America. The inheritance taxes are astronomically high and this is just plain evil. The Bible says in Proverbs 13:22 that "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just." Liberals want to destroy the family because strong families do not need socialism or government give away programs. Liberals want to destroy the ability of strong families to perpetuate the influence of their progeny by stealing half of their net worth through the imposition of confiscatory inheritance tax rates.”<br>
Once again the author has given an incorrect statement (“We already have this in America”) followed by religious ranting and further lies about the intentions of liberals.
So:
“We already have this in America” – No you don’t, you have taxation, not an abolition.
“The inheritance taxes are astronomically high” – I suppose this depends on what your definition of ‘astronomically high’ is but one thing is for certain, the language being used here is intended to distort the readers perception through emotion. If looked at from a vantage where the figures can be seen, we are able to tell that the taxes are NOT as high as is being implied here.
“Rates vary tremendously from state to state. For example, in Indiana, lineal descendants are taxed at rates varying from 1 percent on inheritances of up to $25,000 to 10 percent on amounts of $1.5 million or more. In Pennsylvania, however, they are taxed at a 6 percent rate and non-relatives are taxed at a 15 percent rate, regardless of the amount of inheritance.” – National Conference of State legislatures website.
“Liberals want to destroy the family because strong families do not need socialism or government give away programs” – Conspiracy and fear-mongering. If you want to discredit a political belief then at least tell the truth about what that belief entails.
“4) Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
We already have this in America. You have heard about "FORFEITURE LAWS." Many branches of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and regulatory agencies are confiscating property, goods and money without a trial, without due process, etc. This is a perfect tool for the tyrant bureaucrat who wants to make your life hell. If you are not "Politically Correct" liberals will use these laws to harass you and confiscate your property.”<br>
I can’t claim to have an in-depth knowledge of your countries laws in this specific area but a bit of research on the subject indicates to me that this too is pure fiction.
- Forfeiture laws are there for the purpose of confiscating property that has been purchased through the profit of illegal activity such as drug smuggling, money laundering and large scale fraud.
- Emigrants do NOT have their property taken before they leave the US.
- It is also false that you can have property confiscated for being ‘politically incorrect’.
I think you get the general jist of what I'm saying. Basically the whole article is a load of tosh.
As for childish name calling, well maybe you shouldnt have called me a 'usefull idiot' and a 'sheep like follower'. I repeat, it's ironic that the things you accuse others of are the same things you end up doing yourself.
No, I didnt know what your level of education was, thats why I asked. I'm surprised they didn't teach you the value of using reliable sources of information at university.
If these sites are the place you get your understanding of BASIC political concepts then it is no surprise that you think the US even registers on the left-wing-ometer.
|
|
Instead of childish name calling and attacking the source, why don't you attack my message on its substance? The truth is, you can't! You have no idea what my level of education is and you don't know my reading habits. You probably don't know or understand what I'm talking about. If you were educated, you would know I'm speaking the truth.
