I Hate Liberals and Democrat Voters

[jblank]

Where did I say or claim to be a "paragon" of society. That is YOUR interpretation and it is incorrect. What exactly is the issue with what I posted? Liberals are doing everything I mentioned, redistributing wealth, furthering their efforts to weaken and then eliminate the 2nd Amendment, targeting almost anything that has to do with Christianity in public, doing all they can to further perpetuate a welfare class that is 100% dependent on the government for anything and everything.

I believe in one thing, freedom, and having as much of it as possible, and that includes economic freedom.

[Yorkshire pud]

Where did I say or claim to be a "paragon" of society. That is YOUR interpretation and it is incorrect. What exactly is the issue with what I posted? Liberals are doing everything I mentioned, redistributing wealth, furthering their efforts to weaken and then eliminate the 2nd Amendment, targeting almost anything that has to do with Christianity in public, doing all they can to further perpetuate a welfare class that is 100% dependent on the government for anything and everything.

I believe in one thing, freedom, and having as much of it as possible, and that includes economic freedom.

ahh yes, the old 'freedom' word...I think you'll find it's relative, and the USA isn't and hasn't been the bastion of it for many years.  I didn't say you were a paragon of society, but then saying you're a Christian (or devotee to any other religious fairy story) doesn't make it the right way. I'm an atheist and have yet to hear or see ONE demonstrable way religion has virtues that non religion can't also present. I can list dozens of reasons why religion is harmful.

It's amusing that you appear to profess a Christian attachment but seem also to pick and choose the tenets within..Sorry, subscribing to charities isn't the catch all, and doesn't substitute a charitable outlook; yep even for those in the "welfare class".. As I said earlier, cherry picking the bits that suit.

[jblank]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that being religious makes you above anyone, nor did I say being Christian is "the right" way.

I'm not cherry picking anything, but government confiscating my money and simply giving it away is wrong, and I don't care what religion you subscribe to, it has no bearing on that issue. Being of any religion doesn't mean you have to like having freedoms restricted, your money taken from you, or anything else government does. You're probably European and have lived under Socialist governments for so long that you're unable to believe that the individual is still the best person to deal with problems.

[Quick Karl]

I almost threw up reading that. Have you never been to the Huffington Post's comment on articles sections? Never been to Democratic Underground? You wanna see real hate for the opposition? Take a trip to those two websites and look for comments.

I will say this, I wouldn't mind the left nearly as much if they would stop trying to tear down every freedom this nation was built on. If they would respect the fact that I have a right to keep and bear arms, a right to be a person that believes in the Christian God, a right to keep as much of what I earn as possible, and not take it from me to give it to some welfare "baby mama", sitting in her housing that I pay for, wearing her pajama pants 24 hours a day, smoking her cigarettes that I paid for, popping our child after child, born out of wedlock, I wouldn't mind them a bit.

Holy shit, who are you?

[jblank]

The name is Jay, nice to meet you.

[Quick Karl]

...but then saying you're a Christian (or devotee to any other religious fairy story) doesn't make it the right way.

Neither, does, being, a liberal.

[Yorkshire pud]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that being religious makes you above anyone, nor did I say being Christian is "the right" way.

I'm not cherry picking anything, but government confiscating my money and simply giving it away is wrong, and I don't care what religion you subscribe to, it has no bearing on that issue. Being of any religion doesn't mean you have to like having freedoms restricted, your money taken from you, or anything else government does. You're probably European and have lived under Socialist governments for so long that you're unable to believe that the individual is still the best person to deal with problems.

Oh I'm very English, and we currently have a right wing government, but not as right wing as your current incumbent. Incidentally, I don't know how you elect your leaders, but we do: and if we live 'under' certain governments, it's because the populations voted them in, sure I think they're all a shower of shit, but that's me.

..But I have the privilege of having visited several countries far and wide (How many countries have you been to?); including the USA..I have several friends in the USA too. The individual is the best person to deal with problems? Really? As long as all the individuals want and need the same thing, I guess you're right...However in your case, you share a space with about 320 million, where 14% of the adults are illiterate..So you think those too are able to make problem solving decisions?

[Quick Karl]

The name is Jay, nice to meet you.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, I've never seen a woman type like you! I don't mean that in the chauvinistic sense, I mean it in the dream-woman-come-true sense!

I'm not even going to argue in this forum anymore, I'm just going to sit back and read what you write and smile & nod! 

[jblank]

Thanks Karl, but I'm not a female.

[Quick Karl]

Thanks Karl, but I'm not a female.

God Damned shit.

[Yorkshire pud]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but, I've never seen a woman type like you! I don't mean that in the chauvinistic sense, I mean it in the dream-woman-come-true sense!

I'm not even going to argue in this forum anymore, I'm just going to sit back and read what you write and smile & nod! 

Hey, i was looking forward to some flirting and now Jay (da man) has blown you out... Oh man, that has to sting.

Does remind me of the line in Big Bang theory with Stuart the comic book owner recounting his date with Penny to Leonard by telling him it made a change from "You know I'm a dude, right?"

[jblank]

Oh I'm very English, and we currently have a right wing government, but not as right wing as your current incumbent. Incidentally, I don't know how you elect your leaders, but we do: and if we live 'under' certain governments, it's because the populations voted them in, sure I think they're all a shower of shit, but that's me.

..But I have the privilege of having visited several countries far and wide (How many countries have you been to?); including the USA..I have several friends in the USA too. The individual is the best person to deal with problems? Really? As long as all the individuals want and need the same thing, I guess you're right...However in your case, you share a space with about 320 million, where 14% of the adults are illiterate..So you think those too are able to make problem solving decisions?

If you think the Cameron government is "right wing" then you're to the left of Josef Stalin.

I have been to five countries outside of the US. I have been to Mexico, Canada, Sweden, England, and Spain.

Absolutely the individual is the best to deal with problems. Why would I want an outside agency (read as government) making decisions for me, when they don't have my best interests at heart. Do you feel comfortable turning your life over to a perfect stranger? What a strange, pseudo-Orwellian world you must want to live in.....quite disheartening.

No, I want those 14% to grow up in a climate where they WANT to succeed, on their own, and know that they can't just screw off, not get an education, and then expect government to confiscate wealth from others, and prop up their lifestyle for the next 50 years. It is 2013, unless you live in a third world nation, there is no excuse to not be literate, unless you simply are lazy and apathetic, exactly the kind of behavior that is nourished and encouraged via the welfare state.

[jblank]

God Damned shit.

My avatar may have confused you, but that is actually Anne Hathaway with no teeth in my avatar. I'm far less attractive, but far more intelligent than her. 

I'm a 39 year old male, married, father of two, work as a design consultant for a "major airplane constructor" in the US.

[Yorkshire pud]

If you think the Cameron government is "right wing" then you're to the left of Josef Stalin.

Re:Stalin, He...oh never mind.

I have been to five countries outside of the US. I have been to Mexico, Canada, Sweden, England, and Spain.

Absolutely the individual is the best to deal with problems. Why would I want an outside agency (read as government) making decisions for me, when they don't have my best interests at heart. Do you feel comfortable turning your life over to a perfect stranger? What a strange, pseudo-Orwellian world you must want to live in.....quite disheartening.

I'm seriously impressed. No really. You're quite the polymath and able to do anything.. No need for any outside agency at all? So you have your own fire department, your own hospital, your own airports, roads, in fact everything! Wow...

No, I want those 14% to grow up in a climate where they WANT to succeed, on their own, and know that they can't just screw off, not get an education, and then expect government to confiscate wealth from others, and prop up their lifestyle for the next 50 years. It is 2013, unless you live in a third world nation, there is no excuse to not be literate, unless you simply are lazy and apathetic, exactly the kind of behavior that is nourished and encouraged via the welfare state.

Those 14% won't get better educated. It will get worse. No matter who your next president is in five years, twenty years,.

Sorry I'm distracted at Karl coming onto you, and keep chuckling at the chat up line..you know he can't use that one again don't you?

[jblank]

Clever, but I never said things like "Fire Departments" weren't necessary. We were talking about individuals being able to make their own decisions and set their own course, and somehow you've taken that to mean I'm an anarchist that wants no government at all, and wants us to have to fight our own crime and pave our own roads. I think you know that wasn't what I was going for, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If we keep on the heading we're on now, yes, it will get worse. We've spent over 15 trillion dollars on the "poverty war" since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program started in the late '60's, and you know what, it hasn't gotten any better. Until you incentivize getting an education and stop patting people on the head when they become shiftless mopes that do nothing but leech off society, telling them "we'll make it ok for you", they don't get helped. Just giving someone money doesn't all of the sudden make them want to get off their butts and become productive members of society.

[Sardondi]

Thanks Karl, but I'm not a female.

God Damned shit.

Hey, i was looking forward to some flirting and now Jay (da man) has blown you out... Oh man, that has to sting.

Does remind me of the line in Big Bang theory with Stuart the comic book owner recounting his date with Penny to Leonard by telling him it made a change from "You know I'm a dude, right?"

Heh.

[ItsOver]

Hey, i was looking forward to some flirting and now Jay (da man) has blown you out... Oh man, that has to sting.

Does remind me of the line in Big Bang theory with Stuart the comic book owner recounting his date with Penny to Leonard by telling him it made a change from "You know I'm a dude, right?"

It could have been worse.

[Sardondi]

Heh. I've been able to survive to this point in my life without having ever seen The Crying Game, and I'm pretty sure I can make it all the way out without ruining my perfect record.

[ItsOver]

Heh. I've been able to survive to this point in my life without having ever seen The Crying Game, and I'm pretty sure I can make it all the way out without ruining my perfect record.

I thought it was actually a pretty good flick, Sardondi.  Not one bit of CGI.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Quick Karl]

My avatar may have confused you, but that is actually Anne Hathaway with no teeth in my avatar. I'm far less attractive, but far more intelligent than her. 

I'm a 39 year old male, married, father of two, work as a design consultant for a "major airplane constructor" in the US.

That's OK, I knew it was too good to be true. My intuition was telling me but I guess I hoped against reason!!

[jblank]

Don't sweat it Mr. Roosevelt. 

[Quick Karl]

Don't sweat it Mr. Roosevelt. 

[ItsOver]

My avatar may have confused you, but that is actually Anne Hathaway with no teeth in my avatar...

I'm a sucker for that routine, too, Karl. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh I'm very English, and we currently have a right wing government, but not as right wing as your current incumbent...

Oh Yorkie, you do make me laugh.  You should have just gotten it all out there and told him you think Stalin, Mao and all the rest are right wingers too. 

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Clever, but I never said things like "Fire Departments" weren't necessary. We were talking about individuals being able to make their own decisions and set their own course, and somehow you've taken that to mean I'm an anarchist that wants no government at all, and wants us to have to fight our own crime and pave our own roads. I think you know that wasn't what I was going for, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The individual is not a good decision maker. In most situations you are trying to divide your opponent to the point where they become individual decision makers. While you want to always present a unified front and not appear to be an individual decision maker.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I'm seriously impressed. No really. You're quite the polymath and able to do anything.. No need for any outside agency at all? So you have your own fire department, your own hospital, your own airports, roads, in fact everything! Wow...

These are fairly simple ideas that have been explained in multiple posts already.  Here it is again.


There are some things a government does better than the private sector.  Among them are police, fire and other public safety, justice system, military, diplomacy, roads and infrastructure - that kind of thing.  Some of it is done best at the local level, some is done best by larger entities (in the case of the US that would be counties and states), and some is done best by the national government.

The second thing is that there is plenty of space between continuing on as we are with a huge inefficient unresponsive wasteful bureaucracy - and no government at all.  To say the choice is either this massive bureaucracy or no government at all - and that anyone advocating a smaller less intrusive government really wants no government, no police, no fire dept, etc - is absurd.


Since there have been plenty of recent posts on these subjects, it seems like you ought to know where people are on this by now.  You don't have to agree, but by now you should at least know what the arguments are.  Instead, you go right back to talking about no police or fire departments.  Is there is something specific you don't quite get, or something you'd like to have a fuller explanation on? 

[b_dubb]

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/the_super_rich_no_longer_need_a_middle_class/

[jblank]

Typical leftist drivel from Salon......it isn't government that is hurting the nation, it's the producers of wealth. Do they not realize how similar they sound to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin? We're steamrolling towards 20 trillion in debt, we have a government that is forcing the Fed to print money that we can't back up, they are spending more and more money every year, and taking in more taxes, but giving out far more in entitlements and social programs, but no, that isn't the problem, the real monster in the closet are the rich. The government itself is harming the middle class more than the wealthy are.

[PB the Deplorable]

Typical leftist drivel from Salon......it isn't government that is hurting the nation, it's the producers of wealth. Do they not realize how similar they sound to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin? We're steamrolling towards 20 trillion in debt, we have a government that is forcing the Fed to print money that we can't back up, they are spending more and more money every year, and taking in more taxes, but giving out far more in entitlements and social programs, but no, that isn't the problem, the real monster in the closet are the rich. The government itself is harming the middle class more than the wealthy are.

One thing I wish was more widely understood is that wealth is not a zero sum game.  There is not a set amount to be divided up.  If a person wants to earn more, then work harder, get a different job, invent something, produce more, do something to make yourself worth more to a potential employer.  What someone else has or doesn't have has no bearing on that.

When people produce more than they consume - individually or cumulatively - wealth is increased.  When they consume more than they produce, there is less wealth.  If more is produced and consumption remains the same or grows at a lower rate, wealth is increased. 


Here are some examples.  They apply to individuals, nations, or worldwide.

If a farmer only grows crops in half his fields, the amount of potential wealth is reduced.  If a factory closes for a month, there is less wealth than there would have been if it had stayed open.  When people stay home for whatever reason instead of going to work, there is less wealth created than there would have been had they gone to work (assuming they would have produced something of value at work).

If we consume more than we produce - which by definition means reducing savings (capital), the amount of wealth is reduced.

If we redistribute wealth and more of it is consumed than would have otherwise been invested in inventory, warehouses, stores, factories, farm machinery, hiring new employees, etc, there is less wealth than there would have been.

When people are taxed and those tax dollars are spent less efficiently than the people who were taxed would have spent or invested them, there is less wealth.

It has nothing to do with whether 'the rich' have 'too much'.  Zero.


The absolute easiest thing to do in politics is for some demagogue to point at 'the rich' and tell everyone else the rich are the reason the rest of us don't have as much as we think we should have.  The Dem's have been getting elected for 100 years on this, and it's a lie.  And now, because of the collective ignorance of a majority of voters, we've reached the point that one of these demagogues can be pretty upfront about it and still be elected President.

[onan]

One thing I wish was more widely understood is that wealth is not a zero sum game.  There is not a set amount to be divided up.  If a person wants to earn more, then work harder, get a different job, invent something, produce more, do something to make yourself worth more to a potential employer.  What someone else has or doesn't have has no bearing on that.

When people produce more than they consume - individually or cumulatively - wealth is increased.  When they consume more than they produce, there is less wealth.  If more is produced and consumption remains the same or grows at a lower rate, wealth is increased. 


Here are some examples.  They apply to individuals, nations, or worldwide.

If a farmer only grows crops in half his fields, the amount of potential wealth is reduced.  If a factory closes for a month, there is less wealth than there would have been if it had stayed open.  When people stay home for whatever reason instead of going to work, there is less wealth created than there would have been had they gone to work (assuming they would have produced something of value at work).

If we consume more than we produce - which by definition means reducing savings (capital), the amount of wealth is reduced.

If we redistribute wealth and more of it is consumed than would have otherwise been invested in inventory, warehouses, stores, factories, farm machinery, hiring new employees, etc, there is less wealth than there would have been.

When people are taxed and those tax dollars are spent less efficiently than the people who were taxed would have spent or invested them, there is less wealth.

It has nothing to do with whether 'the rich' have 'too much'.  Zero.


The absolute easiest thing to do in politics is for some demagogue to point at 'the rich' and tell everyone else the rich are the reason the rest of us don't have as much as we think we should have.  The Dem's have been getting elected for 100 years on this, and it's a lie.  And now, because of the collective ignorance of a majority of voters, we've reached the point that one of these demagogues can be pretty upfront about it and still be elected President.

I know several people that work their asses off with more than one full time job. And they are still hardly making it.

To even suggest in today's economic climate that all it takes it a job is a slap in the face. Wages have been stagnant for decades.

And I love how every piece of information that disagrees or somehow shows a different perspective is somehow less than.

Fuck why do I even come here?