@RexRed,
Well, you’ve convinced me.
That you’re a hopeless idiot or a guy who does not think or write very well, but being college educated that actually does make me an “elitist” when only 30% of Americans have a college degree.
I don’t usually cast pearls to swine, but good God, man open your eyes to the new century. The United States has 300,000,000 people in it with a $14,000,000,000 economy and you are still steeped in colonial myths that died over 200 years ago. See your remark….
Quote: I am, terrified of socialism (not black people) and what it could do to the democratic fiber of our current governing system
When someone can push a button and move a billion dollars in capital across national boundaries in a nanosecond your concept of nations is just plainly old fashioned ignorant nonsense.
We have known this was going to happen since the 44 Allied nations of World War Two deliberated upon and signed the Bretton Woods Agreements during the first three weeks of July 1944. (see below the mp3 to the Jensen speech from “Network” to get some idea of where we stand today).
When you realize that only 50 years ago the United States accounted for nearly one-half of the world domestic product and yet within 35 years communist China will exceed the American GDP, you are no longer able to place your remarks on anything but sand.
The first thing is that you cannot, without looking it up define exactly what socialism actually is and if you don’t understand that the rest of your screed is pureed bull$hit. The second is that America had better become more socialist because the alternative will be simply economic and social disaster, in a competitive world where our most competitive economic adversaries are more socialist than the USA. I’ll give you a hint, it’s about over-all national economic efficiency, not simply “INDIVIDUAL” industry efficiency, that includes the demands of labor, capital, and the social structure you are bitching about. It means good health care and continuing education for the producers of wealth, not simply as it is today, for the owners of wealth
Your subsequent remarks are classic conservative tittie ass whining about a future that scares you and generally is held by misanthropes who believe the worst in people.
Don’t believe me on this? Try H A. Hayek, a Noble prize winning economist, in his essay “why I am not a conservative,” who states:
http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1.html
Quote: As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about
SO PLEASE stop insulting others by calling yourself a “moderate,” because you are not. You are dyed in wool,
shaking at the knees about change, conservative.
Your..
Quote:I believe Obama is a rank, sold-out political puppet to special interest and I think he is simply and opportunist flip flopping only for that blind obsession of the precious White House that the dems have placed above even the ethical work of American public as whole
You are also not a Democrat if you call Obama such yet fail also to call the GOP a “sold out PARTY to special interests that has much more placed above even the ethical work of American public as a whole.
The rest or you screed is simply sophomoric nonsense.
Quote:Convince me that what I have laid out here is not the TRUTH. Convince me that the dems are not trying to foster a one party system to usurp power for a future dictatorial rule.
Prove it, give me an example that shows it in a partisan fashion without including Republicans, because the only thing that even appears to be like your nightmare was the Patriot Act and we all know how those votes went or do you,?
here you go, exercise your cud on this; original Patriot Act was approved 357-66 in October 2001. On that occasion, 62 Democrats, three Republicans and one independent voted against it.
It was only in 2005 with a Democratic majority that the more sinister sections of the act was rolled back by a 238 to 187 rebuke to the White House and was produced when a handful of conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with Democrats who are concerned about personal privacy.
Yet, you call Democrats the party of usurpers?
Quote:Even at the expense of American security they have tried to make our vital war efforts fail, AGAIN!
The Iraqi War was not vital the Afghani War was, IS, and it was a Republican administration that gutted the Afghani Campaign of troops supplies, and money to invade Iraq not a Democratic one, you ******* moron.
Quote:Convince me that the dems actually have a policy other than the daily “change” rhetoric of policies that dizzies the mind like a well shifted shell game shuffle.
It dizzies only those who don’t know how to think things through.
Quote:Convince me that the dems are not playing with the American future trading conscience for control.
What the hell evidence can you render up on that to convince me that Democratic policies of looking-before-you-leap are acts of a non-conscious state of mind?
Quote:Convince me that the dems are not pathological liars accusing Bush of "failed policies" to distract voters from clearly seeing their own troubling abyss of sociopath-like lies and hypocritical deceit.
Lets gets this straight, sociopaths are devoid of conscience and lack empathy, they torture other human beings and it was the Republican administration who ordered torture, and are now attempting to lie about it and cover their tracks, so you’re doing nothing but transferring your own support for it to your opponent.
Quote:Only a weak marionette (Obama) pushover clown tied to big corruption and big money could win the favor of such a low life organization as move-on dot org.
With McCain’s big money boys funding his campaign while 2,000,000 average Americans have contributed to Obama that remark is not simply untrue but ******* clueless about objective reality.
Now here’s one for you; it is Americans like you, God awful ignorant people who can’t see an inch beyond their cloying reach for comfort that are destroying the best civilization the world ever built. It is your ilks who support a system that fights against populist rhetoric that distinguish those who actually produce wealth from those who live off of it--"the idle holders of idle capital," JOHN AND CINDY MCCAIN FOR INSTANCE as W J Bryan referred to them in his "Cross of Gold" speech. Populism believes that wealth and power should accrue to those who produced it--"the people," properly so-called--and not to those who lived off the people's labor.
Such a distinction may sound Marxist, but IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE 2000 GORE CAMPAIGN, yet Gore is neither Marxist nor socialist. And it is bizarre in the discussion at hand that unlike Gore for whom you allegedly voted Obama has moved in the other direction since he became the proposed candidate.
So, you’re not only wrong you have seem to have a complete lack of attention to detail.
Now for something intended to confuse or educate you.
It is the Ned Beatty speech from the 1976 film Network, you see, we or at least Paddy Chayefsky knew where we were going 32 years ago even if you don’t seem to know even today where you are, except clueless.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.html
Good day, sir!
