Hillary [censored] sweet lady of democrats sonets
Democrat Al Gore as a Nobel Prize winner....[sensored] educated prostitute
Same as G.W. Bush with his WMD in Iraq [censored] liberator


May be better to be subjects of the E-II Crown than to have such honorable gents ( and probably lady ) as head of state?( God, save us from Hillary!).
Bill of rights started to look like a mirage in the Sahara's sands.

Good sides to be subjects of the crown:
- better school education
- 40 and less hours to work
- bigger vacations
- you have time to read, to travel, for your loveones (including your kids and even wife)
- nobility ( knighthood)* and i am very serious about this.
- better health care
- professional police, they will not shoot you because they just had feeling that you are armed
- less shooting practice in schools
- freedom of speech including jokes about everything in airports.
- less sexual harasment cases
- no Darwin debates

Bad sides:
- all ot the above &
- bigger taxes

// i quoted myself from other post

Absolutely. Too many people seem to confuse "freedom" with "freedom from responsibility."

A Giuliani/Thompson team would be interesting. It's possible (anything's possible in politics:D) and it could work, but I also wonder if Rudy and Fred would put aside their differences over tort reform and abortion? On the other hand, their jabs at each other during the debate may have been limited to the debate - the differences may evaporate in a few months ("Oh? What differences? We see eye to eye on everything....").

One would think that some combination of Rudy and McCain would work, since they're both seen as moderates and are not that far apart in principles (AFAIK), and thus would have the broadest appeal. Likewise, Thompson and Huckabee might appeal to the social conservatives.... But who knows. I was somewhat surprised to find myself liking Huckabee more. I don't think he's got much chance for the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if the nomination went to a "moderate" who then turned around and tapped Huckabee as a running mate to bring in the social conservatives.

At any rate, I feel better about the field than I did before.

deleted

Of course, my ideas are not the result of any reality, only some form of irrational jealousy based on not being rich. And here you support the standard capitalist economic benchmark of more production is better. If you sell it then its good, then you're a good person. Nevermind that on that list is the family that owns Wal-Mart which is accused of being exploitative of its workers, and theres Bill Gates who, at the time of that article, had just seen that court ordered split of Microsoft. Further you assume that since I disagree with our paradigm that I therefore lack an understanding of how the economic machine functions. I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.

All good points. However these low rent jobs which don't support a sustainable living require no qualifications. To get a higher net worth as you say you need higher education. Here enters the limitations of poverty. To get a higher skill level you need to go to a school generally. So poverty immediately handicaps anyone who wants to compete with someone with money. Its hard to get ahead with low skilled jobs that don't pay enough for post-secondary, and this is still ignoring the social implications of poverty which might otherwise retard fruther the process of 'success'.

I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.

Right. But if you want it to work for you, you have to actually participate in it. Just sitting on the sidelines and screaming about what everyone else is doing won't help you. I think that's the ultimate reason why some don't make it in the system. Because they refuse to participate. They'd rather participate in crying and moaning over "class envy" issues, made up "social injustice", and other things. Individuals are solely responsible for their own outcomes. That applies in the real world. Not some school textbook, or what comes out of the mouth of a lefty professor in some social science course.

Not necessarily. Just some choose to be poor by making bad decisions. Put another way, People make bad choices...which leads to poverty. Making babies you can't afford is one of the prime examples of how to keep yourself in abject poverty. Watching loads of TV at night rather than taking some night school courses and trying to develop valuable marketable skills is another way not to get ahead. Dropping out of high school and choosing to engage in criminal activity is another way you may end up poor. If you want to make it in a free society, it's up to you to do the work. Not the government to make everything right for you. I swear some people would do alot better, get richer, and have a better quality of life if they would focus on what they need to do to succeed rather than worrying about what everyone else has. Individuals nned to take responsibility for their own outcomes.

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.

If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:

Unfortunately, the class-envy folks simply won't listen. They purposely put their own blindfolds over their own eyes.

But but bit! Aren't the democrats the ones for the working class man? Aren't they the ones in the same boots as the working class man? Seems they got some very shiny boots on the backs of that working class man to me! Maybe this is why they don't care about lowering the tax bracket of the rich to that of the working class man since it will have no effect on them! They already pay the higher tax bracket, and on top of that, they already found some sleezy way to get out of paying the higher taxes so it doesn't even bother them in the slightest!

Communism at its finest.

-S

Good points. I agree with your assessment. They already got theirs, ya know. I also think they are mostly interested in creating government dependancy out of the working man. Rather than trying to remove obstacles that will enable the working man to be self sufficient.

That's definitely what they want you to believe. :yep: But yes, they've been exploiting the working man using class envy and other tools to secure their own positions. They promise everything and deliver nothing. If you look at your typical longtime Democrat constituency, they're still crying about the same stuff they've been crying about for decades. Only now, they're nuttier. And the Democrats they continually elect that promise them the fixes, never fix anything. Democrats don't want problems solved. I've said it a million times before, If you are happy, prosperous, and fulfilled, what the hell would you need a liberal democrat for?? :88)

They're all the same. Different name, same thing.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that these top wealthy Democrats really don't care about these tax increase because they are exempt in many ways. Most of the top wealthy Dems are of inherited wealth and they generally have a lot of money tied up but little taxable income. A lot of these guys are worth hundreds of millions of dollars but they only pay taxes on a small fraction of that money compared to the "new rich" who are earning $100,000+ a year but pay a higher percentage of their income.

The fact is the top 10% pay 95% of the taxes in this country and it proves that taxes should not be progressive. Everyone should share the burden of taxes because the people who don't have to pay as much don't give a rat's patoot whether or not there is an increase because in their own little world they will stand to benefit from whatever scraps Uncle Sam throws their way while the middle/upper middle class and up all get hosed.

The reality is I am pleased the Democrats went and stepped in this pile of dogdoo. Openly touting tax increases is a surefire way to commit political suicide and they won't get what they want anyways.

That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who created America, believing that government is there solely to guarantee maximum freedom; whereas you see it as a tool to provide control, forcing everyone to follow your idea of what is right, whether they agree with you or not.

As I said, If you believe that any tax is a good thing, you shouldn't be allowed near anyone else's money.

"Show me a young man who's not a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who's not a conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain." - attributed to Winston Churchill

I don't mind liberals with whom I can amicably agree to disagree; I have a great deal of respect for anyone with a thoughtful and reasoned opinion. The problem today, though, is that this is practically impossible, as most of those who claim to stand for tolerance absolutely refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs from their own.

The Left is dominated by people like Rangel, Pelosi, Kennedy, the Clintons, Boxer, and so forth; these are people who stay in power by manufacturing any mandate they claim they have. It's like "The Emperor's New Clothes." They get people to pretend with them that this side of an issue is good, that one bad, or that an issue even exists at all, to wit: "If you're a teenager, get pregnant and stay that way because you'll never get ahead and I'll have a reason to stick it to the Man." Of course they don't say it that way, but in practice that's what it comes down to. They never advocate pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. It's always somebody else's fault and that Somebody owes Us something. Crap.

They keep down the people they claim to be fighting for. That's it and nothing more; they have no other legitimacy - this is why they come out with off the wall hatemongering things like blaming hurricanes and wildfires on a presidential administration. I mean, accusations of that sort are just pure vitriol and nothing else, and peddling it is the only thing that keeps them in power.

I am reminded of one of my favorite Clint Eastwood scenes (High Plains Drifter). I'm paraphrasing but hopefully not too inaccurately:

[Minister]: "You can't just put these people out on the street!"
[Eastwood]: "Are all of these people your brothers and sisters?"
[Minister]: "They most certainly are!"
[Eastwood]: "Fine. Then you won't mind if they stay at your place for a few days, then, will you?"

I suppose the alternate point of view to that in the same language is...


That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who freed Europe from
authoritarian rule by the ultra-rich aristocracy and from the suffering of the underclasses,
believing that government is there to guarantee maximum freedom what ever your social
or economic conditions and to look after the interests of all; whereas you see it as a tool,
totally separate from morality that has no responsibility to look after the sick, infirm,
disaster stricken or those who are stuck in the endless cycle of poverty and instead
letting vast self interested business oppress those they exploit with only the morality of
money.

If you believe that government has no responsibility for it's people, you shouldn't be allowed near people.

*edit* will tidy up formatting in a sec

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
-Gerald R. Ford

You believe government is the answer. I believe it's the problem. I'm perfectly happy with using the government to try to better our lives. I just don't trust people who insist they're taking something away from me for my own good.

In other words, anybody who wants to be in charge shouldn't be trusted. The best president America ever had was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want the job.

Well said.

Much like people who ask to be moderator on Subsim are dismissed, so too those who want to protect you, or want to do what is 'right' for everyone.

What an eloquent way to put it. :up: