Perhaps I am more brash than the other ones.
All I can do is be honest about the way I see it, no better or worse than what you do.
As far as accusing you of being a communist or socialist, if you like those ideas, why be insulted by my questions to you.
And if you are going to come on here and debate, Parados, at least be honest about your foundation philosophy, because to determine why you look at the issues you do, it helps alot to know where your bias is to start with. Everybody has one. If you are a free market liberal instead of a socialist or further along the scale, I'd like to somewhere hear you trumpet the beauty of how the free market works to benefit us all. I don't hear you do that, or at least it was so long ago, I've forgotten it.
And you constantly put words in my mouth I did not say, same as you accuse me of. I have never said that I "whined" about not being agreed with. I only pointed out that I was in the minority here and that many of you did not take it kindly that I disagreed with your liberal mantra that you throw back and forth, thus assuring each other of your great monopoly of wisdom and the stupidity of Right Wing Nuts.
Am I understanding you all correctly? I understand you people now. You've outed yourselves. Apparently, you must all be a bunch of socialists or even further left than that?
Here come the arrows. I knew it would happen.
Some of you people here are exposing your true colors.
Why don't you move to Germany or the Netherlands if you like it better over there?
I understand you people now. You've outed yourselves. Apparently, you must all be a bunch of socialists or even further left than that? I am supposed to apologize for believeing in American tradition and ideals? I am a dinosaur?
I simply said if you like it better in those countries, go there
I had no clue what a hornets nest I was walking into.
I am hoping there will be somebody interested in at least looking at the debate as valid.
Just because you might have to commit to something, don't run out now.
Just a question, were you alive in 1970? If you were, you would have an idea, based on common sense what would have been logical to the public then.
I think you will need to concede some likelihoods in the absence of clear data.
Even so, I don't see anything I wish to apologize for. And where have I said that free market liberals are really socialists? And that all Democrats are socialists? If you can find the quotes, I will correct them, but don't recall saying that.
That would fit much of what we see today. Translation: Left wants socialism or communism, which is equal outcomes.
All this brings up a question. Why can't Leftists in the U.S. be honest and admit they are socialists, or further along the political scale, communists?
but it is my opinion that the current Democratic Party has leaders that subscribed to socialist, communist, and marxist philosophies in their college years, and I think there is not much evidence they have shed those former ideas altogether. They of course will not admit anything or come out of the closet with their entire agenda now, but many of their ideas bear resemblance to their former self.
How many Democrats like the free market? Most of them have worked in government their entire lives. To them, companies are evil. What more do you need to know?
They despise free enterprise. I use the Clintons as examples, but there are plenty like them.
P. S. You keep coming back to the 68 platform where I simply pointed out the recognition by it that cutting taxes encouraged business investment and economic activity, and I likened it to trickle down economics, which Democrats scoff at and say does not exist and does not work. I stick by that statement.
We cut taxes for more than 90% of America's dynamic small businesses. Today, for most families, the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in twenty years. ...
Strengthening small business is a vital component of economic innovation, job creation, and supporting entrepreneurship. Small businesses have accounted for more than 90 percent of the 22 million new jobs created with Democratic leadership. The Democratic Party is committed to sustaining and adding to that level of growth of small businesses, including home based businesses.
We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation. Government's responsibility is to create an environment that will promote private sector investment, foster vigorous competition, and strengthen the foundations of an innovative economy.
What is so offensive about me using the term, socialists, when it describes the beliefs of politicians?
I probably should have said extreme leftists want socialism or communism. But certainly, most all leftists favor more equal outcomes as a goal, which is what? Tough question there for you Parados.
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
What is so offensive about me using the term, socialists, when it describes the beliefs of politicians?
I don't believe current Democrat leaders would propose all that they believe now. I've never suggested that.
And I fully know that current Democrats, including their platforms, utilize the free markets, and even know that tax cuts stimulate business activity.
but it is my opinion that the current Democratic Party has leaders that subscribed to socialist, communist, and marxist philosophies in their college years, and I think there is not much evidence they have shed those former ideas altogether. They of course will not admit anything or come out of the closet with their entire agenda now, but many of their ideas bear resemblance to their former self.
However, when a Republican tries to institute that very policy, many of them openly criticize it as something that does not work, giving tax breaks to the rich, blah, blah, blah., They may even use the effect but never even acknowledge it. What it really shows, Parados, is hypocrisy.
I've followed politics for a long time, and increasingly, Democrats demonize business, accuse business of greed, and so on, and I honestly do not recall much of praising free enterprise at all by Democrats recently.
So what conclusion is logical concerning their beliefs about free enterprise even though that is the system in place? They seldom if ever praise its efficiency anymore. It is always a government solution that is proposed.
The subject of trickle down economics and the private sector in the 2004 platform enforces what I said in the above about hypocrisy. You found it in the fine print of the platform evidently, but when Reagan did it, he was a fool according to Democrats for believing in such things. I simply do not hear the Howard Deans, the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, who else should I mention, saying much more about fixing any problem except by a government solution.
So what this maybe points to is that even Hubert Humphrey didn't believe in trickle down economics, but they threw it into the platform that if needed they would use it because they knew it worked, darn it, but overall the solution to every problem was a government fix.
Parados, how much do some of the Democrat advocacy groups like and brag about business activity, free enterprise, as opposed to government fixes for virtually everything? What I see are roadblocks at virtually every turn by such people.
I am tired of you parsing every word of mine trying to find a loophole like some lawyer here.
And I've asked you how many times now? What is your political philosophy? Don't tell me left of center. I have no clue now what you consider "center." Maybe center is Cuba for all I know. Provide some detail and why. You still cannot answer a simple question. How many dissertations and lectures have you given to me here, but yet can't answer a simple question?
okie wrote:
What is so offensive about me using the term, socialists, when it describes the beliefs of politicians?
It doesn't only seem so - you prove it nearly every time when you use that word: you have not the slightest idea about what socialism means in today's political life. (Are you e.g. aware that Tony Blair is the head of one of the oldest socialist parties? Still today pointing at: The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.))
Now, Parados, you assert socialism has nothing to do with advocating equal outcomes, but instead it is about state ownership of capital. Okay, so socialists do not like capitalism, because it creates unequal classes, with the people with all the money benefiting from the people doing all the work. That is unequal and unfair in their view, therefore they do in fact advocate public ownership so that all the people can be equal, in terms of equal outcomes, and all share in enjoyment of the wealth in a more fair and equal manner.
Concerning my statements about Democrat leaders now, and what they believe, yes you are correct, it is difficult to tell exactly what they believe because I don't think they are very honest about their beliefs.
Simple fact. Whether it is more customers buying more products because of a tax cut to them or the availability of more capital for the company because of a tax break for the company, in either case a company may be able to upgrade or increase its equipment as an example, or give their workers a raise, or hire more workers, thus being able to upgrade its products or be more competitive with the products it already has, or make more products. These examples are only a handful of the many, many effects that ripple through the economy because of tax cuts.
I'm tired of playing games here with left, center, moderate, right winger, whatever that all means
As far as myself, I openly and proudly endorse capitalism, which is the worst system on the face of the earth, except for all the other ones.
I frankly am sick and tired of the liberal mantra complaining about the rich, the evil corporations, blah, blah, blah. To summarize, get a life. And if you feel guilty about being rich if somebody gave it to you, give as much to charity as you can.
okie,
For someone that has no idea what socialism means you sure like to call a lot of people socialists. Since you have no idea what it means you might want to stop using it until you learn since you continually misuse the term.
And Walter, you also tell me by your short and to the point posts that you think I know nothing about socialism in today's world. I do appreciate your courtesy, but would appreciate a bit more explanation and elaboration, not just by posting some intellectual website, but in your own words.
Parados, you obviously do not understand my obvious point about lots of things, such as equal outcomes. In no way do I imply that all people will be doctors. I won't repeat the obvious.
You go on to accuse me of all kinds of things, including not knowing anything at all about socialism in today's world,
but also that I don't know much of anything else about all the other things I've said, like how could I have any idea what Democrats stand for or desire or advocate. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is only your opinion.
You act like your political perspective is the only valid one. You label my opinions as "crap" among other things, and that I don't know a blankety blank thing about economics, liberals, corporations, etc.
I think you are simply upset that not everyone agrees with liberals. Compared to my rants, you put me to shame, Parados.
You also can't resist telling me that you have concluded that I had everything handed to me. You also go on to make the statement that nobody can make it on their own. Obvious statement, but does that have to include government all the time every time, or are you just talking about the guy down the street that gave you the job, or your parents that raised you?
Parados, I paid my own way through college, I've never inherited a dime, my parents have not given me large sums of money, maybe $25.00 or lately even $100 for my birthday, I've worked for a major corporation, I've owned my own business, I served my time in the Army, I've seen different parts of the world, and I could go into more detail but won't. You think I should learn something about the real world. Well, I think I have. If you don't think so, I can't help it. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with you, thats all. I think you are wrong.
Parados, I am glad to finally hear you say a couple of things, such as about corporations, etc. You finally said you make a good living in the capitalist system. Still not much in your rants about your political philosophy. I've finally gotten a tidbit or two. I will continue to work on it if this continues. I would like to get inside the head of a liberal or two to see what makes you tick.
And Walter, you also tell me by your short and to the point posts that you think I know nothing about socialism in today's world. I do appreciate your courtesy, but would appreciate a bit more explanation and elaboration, not just by posting some intellectual website, but in your own words.
One thing I've noticed about liberals on this forum, is that if you disagree with the liberal viewpoint, you are attacked personally as ignorant, uninformed, and basicly stupid. Not much different than the attacks on George Bush these days.
The polarization in our arguments here is a microcosm of what is going on now in politics.
Without arguing about that observation, surely we could both find this effect interesting and somehow try to identify it.
I think some of us have lost our way, in terms of the basic philosophy of how we should govern ourselves and live together in freedom and harmony. That was part of my motivation for starting this thread, to point out what I think is happening.
Have a pleasant day.
okie wrote:And Walter, you also tell me by your short and to the point posts that you think I know nothing about socialism in today's world. I do appreciate your courtesy, but would appreciate a bit more explanation and elaboration, not just by posting some intellectual website, but in your own words.
You see okie, I'm not a native English speaker.
Certainly I could write some pages about socialism today ... in German.
So I pointed to some wbesites where persons with a better language knowledge and/or native English speakers wrote about this subject.
Socialism today - and in the last 50, 60 years - doesn't concept of a class party and Marxist principles but e.g. tries (nowadays) to keep social welfare programs in their programs.
It's generally more pro humans than pro big companies.
Etc etc
I think you will need to concede some likelihoods in the absence of clear data.
My contention is going to be that 95% of the people were likely against gay marriage at that time, and so Humphrey likely was as well
I am not citing sources now. We can argue it out later. If you don't like my ratings, do your own and then I can shoot yours down. Thats more fun anyway.
4. Foreign Policy / Trade - I am unsure about this issue but felt it would likely track with his traditional defense policy.
11. Abortion - I gave him another M here, not conservative. Not totally known but I doubt he would have supported partial birth abortion.
A good example, many liberals will label the Vietnam War as Nixon's war, not Johnson's war.
Surely you must recognize that many of those engaged in drugs and rather proud of it before they got into politics. And even as many of these same people have grown older and gained control of the Democratic Party, their underlying stripes are still the same. They are the rebels. They rebelled against the standards of the previous generation and still are. Many of the causes coming out now are the fruits of that.
If you want evidence, its everywhere and obvious. I've given you lots of obvious evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge.
I think most historians and political observers that have lived through the last 50 or 60 years would concur.
To the liberal, the economy is static regardless of the tax rate imposed; the only thing for them to decide is what percentage of the economy that they want for taxes. They do not acknowledge tax rates as one of the more important variables that affects profits, economic growth, etc.
Translation: Left wants socialism or communism, which is equal outcomes.
Why can't Leftists in the U.S. be honest and admit they are socialists, or further along the political scale, communists?
Also, Hillary is taking the step to mandate voting by ex-felons by the federal government, which appears to contradict the constitution, 14th amendment Section 2. Its one thing if the states determine the policy, quite another if the Federal Government does it.
his comment could rile lots of people, but it is my opinion that the current Democratic Party has leaders that subscribed to socialist, communist, and marxist philosophies in their college years, and I think there is not much evidence they have shed those former ideas altogether.
There are courses titled things like, the "American Holocaust," just another run of the mill class like countless others like it,
To them, the answer to any problem is, you guessed it, more government. They despise free enterprise. I use the Clintons as examples, but there are plenty like them.
How many Democrats like the free market? Most of them have worked in government their entire lives. To them, companies are evil. What more do you need to know? They think only government has the solution to anything. What have the Clintons ever done to have a real job outside government? Oh yeah, I forgot the Rose Law Firm. And they couldn't even find the records on that.
I mentioned also the presence of numerous socialist, marxist, and communist professors on the college campuses around the country
