Social Security is legalized theft. It's a ponzi scheme. Obama isn't a muslim, but he is a socialist, and a globalist. He endorses empire and murder. I don't care if he is black, Jewish, female, gay or whatever. His policies and positions SUCK.
...By your boogie-man lens of history, Otto Von Bismarck, Prussian Aristocrat, Authoritarian Leader of the Unified Germany of 1871, lifelong enemy of socialism, and forger of the coalition of "Iron and Rye" against a nascent socialist movement, was a bleedin,' stinkin' pinko because he introduced - close your eyes - SOCIAL SECURITY!
Bogart, I guess you're hopeful I'll probably just tire of refuting your smear based on vagaries, or that by repeating your falsehoods since page 1, over and over, eventually it will stick. I may, and will likely tire - whether it's your conspiracy theory based on nothing, or Guerilla's conspiracy theory based on his love of John Birch society nonsense, it's all whacked. Everything you've thrown up has been flushed to the toilet, rightfully, with facts. Every issue that's dismissed, you leap to another issue in the hope you'll find something that just doesn't exist in reality. Did you at some point wish to offer facts to support your "smoke and mirrors" or just wanting to continue the charade? But I wholeheartedly applaud your asking a specific question on the man's candidacy that doesn't involve some intimation of his shadowy Al-Qaeda takeover of the U.S. Obama believes in reasonable gun control. This puts him in line with a lot of folks, including myself. Here's more: http://Obama's stance on Gun ownership
Like I said, Obama is the great hope of George Soros. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Glad to see we're moving off conspiracy theories to mere labels, Bogart. It's actually a step up. Your source also says: Is this, then, a great resource? Labels, pat definitions, conspiracy theories. Useless. Obama has worked with the most conservative members of his house, to achieve common goals - such as government financing transparency, an issue important to all of us. So, Labels don't do a lot of good. Work for the common good does. You don't like the man or his policies, don't vote for him. If, as it appears is happening, he becomes President, there's room for all of us. There isn't room any longer for paranoid, manichean visions that see "American" and "Not-American" at every turn.
You're avoiding a direct answer. Social Security is a ponzi scheme, yes or no? Obama endorses wealth confiscation and redistribution by the state, yes or no? Obama endorses federal power over state independence, yes or no? Obama's policies call for a dramatic increase in spending, yes or no? What's the matter? How come Obama fanboys won't speak specifically about his platform? Something to hide? Or just unabashed ignorance by the followers of this cult of personality?
Social security is a govt program to provide for citizens after they stop working. It is anything but a ponzi scheme. It is a program hopefully set up by a responsable entity (the govt.) to care for citizens. I should source information I read. I read something recently representing either a poll or hard research representing that people in retirement get income from a variety of sources. Social security was the largest contributor but not more than 50%. Retirement programs, savings, others sources made up the remainder. Social security doesn't contribute a lot of money. Its a scary system for citizens. I've been getting to know some employees at a small business we just purchased. It was spooky to hear from one person. Per her story she is working 2.5 jobs/week and what must be approximately 70-90 hours/week. She doesn't make much money. She has a disabled son to care for. She is damn nice, intelligent, and capable. She is neither well educated or has advanced degrees/professional/better paying type skills. She arrives at our job 5 days a week after her first 9 hour shift. Then she takes on weekend work. She has potentially 20 more years of employment opportunity. I wish her luck in advancing and getting more income. Right now she isn't making enough to develop a healthy savings/investment program for the future. Gotta be millions of folks like her in the country. Guerilla, didn't you in the past speak eloquently about the lives of dead Iraqi's as a result of the war. What would you have the US do with people who reach a point where they can't work any more? Kill em all? What is your suggestion. In general democrats like to see greater wealth distribution. In fact most advanced nations do something of that ilk. When income gets too focused on the few and the wealthy there are innumerable societal problems. Visit Versailles. It is a teeny version of what existed in France when built by Royalty. It bankrupted the nation. Then the French revolted and took down royalty. When income distribution gets out of hand the majority of the population suffers immeasurably. Income distribution in the US is far more skewed than a couple of decades ago. Income redistribution tends to keep citizens happy. Not a bad thing for a society. It doesn't have to be gross. It merely has to happen around the edges. Over time in a nation it will change. The trick is too keep it balanced in some way. That takes constant work. I don't know about Obama favoring federal power over state power. That at times can be a bullsh!t discussion. You tend to call these discussions "strawman" Bush removed financial institutions from state oversight. In some cases it removed banks from consumer protections against irresponsable lending. You know--the mortgage problem that you have railed against. Theorists and overly crazy political animals label stuff like that "states rights" versus "federal rights". Bush administration has more recently told California and about 18 states that they can't establish separate environmental laws. Who the hell is favoring federal rights over states rights. Who the hell is not looking out for people with financial problems or potential environmental issues. The question you posed is simply more poltical rhetoric. When it comes to spending....look at the facts. During the Clinton administration federal govt spending increased about 27% (not accounting for inflation). Anticipated spending increases during the Bush administration are well over a 50% increase from his first year. That includes estimates during the last year. We already know Bush is underestimating expenditures. He is including only a partial year estimate for costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration and the Conservative republicans in power in congress over the majority of this last 8 years supported these programs. Well over 50% increase in spending. Cripes. That is astronomical. Bush and the conservatives have lots of spending programs....lets try and give them names. They deserve them. If a so called Democrat/liberal (as you like to label them) calls for something new...it gets labeled a program...when the Republicans/conservatives do this stuff and explode spending...it never gets a name. Its only right to give them names. 1. The war program. Some estimates going forward suggest that it will cost well over $1 trillion. That is a big spending program. 2. Govt money for reconstructing a part of the US after Katrina. I'd call that the Spend a lot of money/don't get good results/don't tell the people what you are doing/and put more money into Mississippi than Louisiana because Mississippi has a Republican governor program 2.5 years after Hurricane Katrina hit the poor sections of New Orleans remain a disaster. There is no clear picture of how much will be rebuilt or not. Most recently it was found that trailors that still house people relocated from their lost homes now are found to be environmentally dangerous. Of note it was determined that FEMA knew about this in 2006 and didn't want the issue to become public knowledge. They hid it until a recent congressional investigation and the revealing of an internal FEMA document that said to hide the information. You might want to rename this program the Incompetence program 3. Health care expenses and specifically the Bush drug program. This one also deserves a different name. It was reported that prescription drug costs to the government have increased about 20% or more primarily the result of the prescription drug program that was pushed through the Congress by administration and allies in the Republican house, during which arms were twisted and specific members of congress received threats to support the program. Right after passage govt sources leaked that the actual anticipated costs were far higher than the administration made public. One person (accountant/finance/budget staffer) said his job was threatened if he revealed the costs which they had actually assembled. The drug prescription law specifically removed fed buyers of this source (medicaid/medicare or both) from negotiating group discounts. That creates higher costs directly for tax payers. Immediately after passing the law a huge number of members of congress and staffers were immediately hired by lobbyists for various parts of the drug industry. I'd rename that program Corruption and government gifts to the drug industry program. 4. Move more and more functions of government into the hands of outside contractors and pay them more. We have enormous volumes of govt contractors. Guerilla, you have bemoaned the existance of the mercenaries in Iraq. They are the most obvious example of gross turning over of govt functions and expansion of govt costs and activities through direct payments to contractors. So current Republicans have lots of spending programs. They tend to spend greater than democrats...at least when you compare the last two administrations. I know. You like Paul and libertarian theoretical views with the gold standard on top of it. Is there a nation on the face of the earth that is practising any of these principles to a large degree. I can't think of an economically strong large nation that is doing so. Name one.
Sorry, away being a dad. You know, the real world. Like my service in the United States military - real world experience. You speak from platitudes with the timbre of one who has read a bit from an extremely narrow codus of beliefs. And if you'd asked a question, you would have gotten an answer. Not the kind of horseshit you like to try, Guerilla - not forcing a tortured theory through the grinder to get the forcemeat of a religious viewpoint ("Hitler was a non-interventionist"; you name it), but a considered, reasonable reply. In that vein, Earl, I applaud your excellent reply. Guerilla, screaming "Obama is a socialist" isn't a question, it's an idiocy, since the definition of socialism is a collective working class in charge and ownership of the means of industrial production (theory) and the governmental programs you scream about - social security, for instance, instituted, in the west, by the most anti-socialist polity in Western Europe, under Otto von Bismarck and the Kaiser (history and practice) - are what societies do when they aren't in the state of nature. You see, Guerilla, you preach all kinds of crap that mean nothing. Empty air. You say you cannot countenance taxes, but only "user fees." When I long ago pointed up an example of the implications of such a viewpoint - a 4-way traffic light; pedestrians having to pay a $0.25 "toll" to private property owners to cross the street at each corner: And you danced, "avoiding a direct answer," in your words. So many other easy dismissals of your ridiculous religious viewpoint. You want unfettered access to firearms, without regulations of any kind. In your "libertarian" worldview, why not take the implications at face value? War, armed revolution, for instance. Why disarm enemies, foreign or domestic? Isn't it "interventionist" to declare it illegal to carry arms, under any circumstances? Shouldn't anyone, at any time, be free to buy and sell firearms - and I should add, any and all manner of ordinance - in the interest of "self-protection"? No? Why, that is control, man, having no place in a society holding "liberty" as a primary value. There are an infinite number of examples where your position is fatuous in the extreme, yet you hold to it, without following out its practical implications to the real world; not in the least. Yet you have the balls to call folks like myself "vague." You also are a hypocrite in the extreme, and that's something I can't countenance. You will cry a river over the right of a neo-nazi website to do what it wishes, without hindrance, yet will equally, stridently, support efforts to railroad organizations such as Wikipedia into what they should or should not include in their web content. You will make snide comments about "acting out of fear" if the viewpoint raised differs from yours, but as a conspiracy theory devotee, and a John Birch Society supporter to boot, FEAR is your operative watchword - COMMIE boogies everywhere, and "America" is a defined commodity narrowly drawn from a fetid well, viewed through the refraction of your insubstantial prism only. You rail against collectivism, yet when the American people - you know, the individuals making up the American polity - have chosen to wholesale reject your candidate and his views, in spades - why then, so much for individual choice and "collectivism is anathema" - it's "Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple." I've seen your kind in the past - from Robespierre to Lenin and beyond. If the "people" don't have the sense to make the right choice, the "people" are flawed, not the social theory itself. At any rate, in my world, it's a world of utility, given the world is an imperfect entity. When it comes to government, I've said my view: Now, this is a bullshit thread about Obama being an Al-Qaeda plant, not your skewed John Birch Society worldview as to what constitutes socialism. A while back, you made a drama about not getting involved with me on this board, then proceeded to burble a waste of empty words in contradiction, so here it is: I've lived more life than you'll ever live, Guerilla. I know more about history and its lessons than you'll ever learn. I've got more brains than you'll ever have, and more character to bring to bear in reflecting on the world and its ills than you'll ever hope to achieve. I tried, in the past, to remain a gentleman with you, until that possibility was cleaved in two. I have irreparably lost all respect for you on this board, and with this message, you're on ignore. You would do well to ignore me as well, and go your delusional way.
And that is the endless twisting of the ultimate big joke of empty rhetoric and crazy political ranting. The political blockade of no taxation eminating from a small group of power hungry theoriticians is seeming to run its course. Its becoming the "no solution" response to citizens who live in regions where the political dominance of heavily conservative pols who swear by this doctrine can't come up with the money to solve serious problems. I live in Northern Virginia. The legislature can't figure out a way to fund necessary transportation improvements. It got so bad that an offer to have a vote just in Northern Virginia and to establish a self tax on residents of the region to deal with this issue was voted down by the state legislators. The problem is only getting worse. The compromise solution to charge the living bejeebers out of people who violate driving laws is so cockamamie that it is being shelved in about 1 years time. But....its a helluva of a piece of rhetoric for those that want political power. And I'm not one that likes paying taxes. But I'd rather have solutions any day of the week. btw, nice writing, NorthP. You are very eloquent.
So you are saying it is not. Then perhaps you can explain who the first person to get SS was, how much they paid in, and how much they got out? Btw, I feel like I am at a competitive disadvantage replying. I'm high on acid right now , and could have swore you wrote that the government is a (sic) responsable entity. The single greatest source of corruption and economic waste, is now "responsable". George Orwell is spinning in his grave. I don't know if I spoke eloquently, but I do not like to see innocent people get killed. But the notion that only the state can care for you in your old age, and only in the increments that they determine viable and politically acceptable, is far from a humanitarian outlook. You get one wacko politician in there, who seizes more executive power than he is entitled to, and the power to feed and cloth can very quickly become a weapon of terror against his citizens. Here is a nutty idea. Kids help out their aged parents. People save for retirement. Some people work past the accepted retirement age. No, it's not perfect. But it is moral. Sure. Because Dems buy votes with welfare handouts, and Republicans coerce votes with fear mongering and hyper-nationalism. But you've carefully rephrased what I wrote. Not wealth distribution. Re-distribution. I grow 10 apples, the state takes 5 and gives them to other people, and this is how the system works. I don't know who got them, they may or may not even work for them, they might be foreigners in another country who get them. But I don't make that conscious decision to help or share, it is done by the coercive force of law. I give up my apples, or I lose my grove. Or worse yet, I get imprisoned. Maybe the Senators son takes 5 apples, and uses them to buy drugs, or guns for Contras. Why don't we untax her? She's already shown the spirit and will to work, to make her own future and protect her son. Why is she taxed? Why is she forced to pay into SS, when she might need that money now, to create opportunities for real savings later? These are the people I like to help. Those that help themselves. Sometimes, they just need people to get out of their way. It's a dangerous and slippery slope, when people take the tact that they know better how someone else should live their life. Whether it is advice, help, or restriction, it's a massive moral burden and potential quagmire to impose your beliefs on someone else. You're talking about a monarchy, which is historically interesting, but a bad example considering we are talking about a Constitutional Republic. Like comparing flying to sailing as means of transportation. I'll agree with your second paragraph. I vehemently disagree with the 3rd. It's immoral for me to take from you, (or likewise) and give it to someone else. You have every moral responsibility to share if you can, to help others, but the law cannot make us moral, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Because if that was the case, the Church would have done it ages ago. We would be hyper enlightened and moral, and good and beneficent. They had the coercive power, the books and the infrastructure. If it was possible to make men good by coercion, it would have already happened. Balance would be wonderful, but that is probably not realistic. It's certainly not natural given our dispositions to either be lazy, greedy or both. I see people trying to enforce unnatural balance the same way I see minority employment quotas. Do you want to be hired because you are smart and capable, or a minority? Is it fair to the capable and smart majority person who loses a job opportunity based on color or some other factor? Statistically, it may be "fair", but practically, we all know it is not. I skipped the state's rights, Bush this, Republican/Democrat that, whatever. It's irrelevant to the topic of Obama. Who is Obama. What is his platform. What is his economic plan? What is his foreign policy? Who are his advisors? Where does he stand on the UN and globalism? Where does he stand on Executive Orders? Inevitably, Ron Paul was going to get dragged in, because in the absence of knowledge on a particular candidate, it's always handy change direction and talk about my candidate. I've already answered the question on nations that have and are practicing libertarian principles. Search posts by "Guerilla", with word "hong kong". But it's irrelevant what size of country practices what system. The Soviets and Chinese are huge, and they have practiced communism, which has failed in the macro and the micro. Size is irrelevant. If you want to discuss libertarian philosophy, I would be thrilled to do so. NPT started a thread on such a subject, but lacked the veracity to participate. We could dig that up and carry on. Only iul had the stomach for the topic. But let's keep this about Obama. If you support him, why? What is different about Obama? What does he stand for (policy wise, not rhetoric)? I dislike Clinton very much, but she is much clearer about her strategies and plans. Perhaps it's Obama's undefined cult of personality that creates the attraction. The less people know, the less there is to hate or disagree with.
You forgot how humble you are too... Just for the record, ignore or not, you've got a bad tendency of lashing out at people, of personalizing posts to the point of insult and attack, which undermines any kind of intellectual high ground you suppose you stand on. For someone with more brains and character, who has lived more life, knows more history and has mastered more lessons, somehow I think I am still one up on you. I don't lose it emotionally on an internet message board, quitting and returning, over and over, in a masochistic cycle. Btw, you still didn't answer my questions about Obama.
Taxation is legalized theft, plain and simple. If it didn't have to be taken by force, it would not be a tax. It would be charity, or donations, or some other wonderful name. But it is by force. You pay what you are told to pay, you get to keep what you are told you can keep. The power to tax, is the tool of the power hungry. You can use taxes to buy votes, to curry favors, and to steal for personal gain. You constantly rail against no taxes, and yet, we've had taxes in America for less than 100 years. You do your best to marginalize it, and make it sound far fetched and theoretical, and yet you are totally avoiding the fact that this country had over 100 years of no income taxation, and the articles which formed the Republic created no provision for such taxation. There is nothing theoretical about no income tax. Right now countries are experimenting with flat sales taxes. But you're caught up in this socialist wealth re-distribution idea. Why should the legislature fund transportation? If it is economically viable, as in it could be at the very least, break even or profitable, why wouldn't someone do it as a private enterprise? Why should the state set up a bureaucracy around it? I'm not familiar with the specific instance, but sounds like a deregulation problem. Of course, once you have intervention, the answer to problems is always more intervention. Like scratching a rash. So long as everyone is footing the bill for your solution, whether they agree or not, whether they benefit or not. Yeah, I like free rides at someone else's expense too. It's always great when my cost is $2 for a $5 service because some poor bugger who has no interest in it, is taxed to subsidize my usage. Btw, in between you and NPT making love eyes at one another, no one has answered my questions about Obama. What is his foreign policy? What is his economic plan? Where does he stand on Constitutional Power of the Executive branch? Is he a Federalist (Hamilton), or an anti-Federalist (Jefferson)?
Here's my thought. Debate on forums should be strictly an mental exercise, a timepass. I have a feeling there are many here, who take it all too seriously. As everywhere else. It's not good for you, all that wasted time and the peace of mind lost. This might interest someone. http://www.stevepavlina.com/articles/effective-online-forum-usage.htm
I've been looking into this a little more and I'm coming to the conclusion Obama is a muslim Look at it. Obama picked a church that is connected to Luis Farakan and has an anti-jew message. Many of his staffers are members or connected the Nation of Islam People are saying it's ludicrous to say that Obama is a muslim. But hey the guy was raised by a muslim family in a muslim country. Look at his name Barack Hussein Obama. I just ran across this on the Debbie Schlussel blog Obama's Nation of Islam Staffers, Edward Said & "Inflexible Jews" Causing Mid-East Conflict: An Obama Insider Reveals the Real Barack An insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama's placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign. The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama's involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns. She did not respond to repeated calls for comment. But the insider says there is more to it than that. Obama's Illinois State Senate district consisted of prime Nation of Islam territory, including Hyde Park, home to Farrakhan's mansion. It is not possible, Illinois politicos say, to win that district without the blessing of the Nation of Islam leader. Nation of Islam leader members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html
All I gotta say, I am way more worried about a socialist neocon or neolib than I am worried about a Muslim.
That's another issue that Obama is a spend and tax socialist. The muslim issue isn't necessarily a big deal on the face. But Obama is more of an issue because he was raised outside the US and has connections to the Nation of Islam and other radicals. The US Constitution has a requirement that the President be born in the US for a reason. Having someone born in the US and raised in a foreign country is against the spirit of the US Constitution.
That, and that he is a gun grabbing globalist, are the biggest issues for me. Honestly, I don't care if the President is a lesbian, a martian or whatever. We got way bigger problems re: the spirit of the Constitution. Many people, caught up in the Obamamania, simply don't have a clue who they are voting for, just that he is, 1) Not Republican 2) Not Clinton 3) Is an incredible public speaker, with mastery of revivalist rhetoric I called a friend in Cali a few weeks ago. Asked him if he was voting (this is a friend I don't talk politics with). He says sure, voting Democrat. I asked (as a joke), "Kucinich"? He said, sure, or Obama. I told him Kucinich had already dropped out. So he was going to vote Obama. Who had very little in common with Kucinich. This is typical. You have people arguing with me for supporting Ron Paul, meanwhile they are unaware that the Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam was a false flag, or that the Federal Reserve literally prints money out of thin air, devaluing the money you hold. They are mind numbingly ignorant, that they argue for wealth confiscation and re-distribution as a social right, totally unaware that this is the foundation of communism, an ideology we fought tooth and nail. People are f**king dumb, and many of those dumb people, are Obama supporters, as evidenced by the lack of substantive discussion everytime I bring up Obama's platform. Cult of Personality politics for a society hooked on fatty foods, and American Idol. ARGH!