this is great. hussein O griping about Rush

#76
#76
GAVol said:
Don't call someone stupid in the same sentence where you mix up "naivete" with a term for a Christmas scene.
Click to expand...

Lol, yea, my bad on that. But then again, I can recognize that I've made mistakes, unlike Bush, who defended every mess-up he had done from January 20, 2001-January 20, 2009
 
#77
#77
GAVol said:
I think Limbaugh is a complete windbag, but the context makes all the difference. He never made a blanket statement saying that he wanted him to fail no matter what.
Click to expand...
Limbaugh is a windbag, but he's one damn smart cat and he has defined conservatism in America for a long time now.
 
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
By that broad definition:

No Child Left Behind? Socialist

Expanding Medicare or Medicaid under Bush? Socialist

Public Education across the board, including your state-subsidized education at UT?


SOCIALIST
Click to expand...


Even those of you who didn't borrow a dime or get a cent in scholarships to go to UT, you are benefiting from SOCIALISM!
 
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
By that broad definition:

No Child Left Behind? Socialist

Expanding Medicare or Medicaid under Bush? Socialist

Public Education across the board, including your state-subsidized education at UT?


SOCIALIST
Click to expand...

Actually, if you wanted to get technical about it....

Police force? Government ran program = Socialist

Fire Department? Government ran = Socialist

Military? Government ran defense = Socialist
 
#80
#80
nickknx865 said:
Actually, if you wanted to get technical about it....

Police force? Government ran program = Socialist

Fire Department? Government ran = Socialist

Military? Government ran defense = Socialist
Click to expand...
don't be a clown. Those are all clearly government provided services as generally dicated by the constitution. We're talking about the economy and distribution of income in our country.
 
#81
#81
BigPapaVol said:
don't be a clown. Those are all clearly government provided services as generally dicated by the constitution. We're talking about the economy and distribution of income in our country.
Click to expand...



That's exactly what those programs do -- they collect wealth from people based on ability to pay in order to provide services to the entire society, including those that cannot afford the services themselves.
 
#84
#84
lawgator1 said:
That's exactly what those programs do -- they collect wealth from people based on ability to pay in order to provide services to the entire society, including those that cannot afford the services themselves.
Click to expand...
Obama's "spread the wealth", and Federal assistance to the needy are apples and oranges.

LG, you know this to be true.
 
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
That's exactly what those programs do -- they collect wealth from people based on ability to pay in order to provide services to the entire society, including those that cannot afford the services themselves.
Click to expand...

What do they have to do with capitalism?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#87
#87
Acknowledging and bringing up Rush makes Obama look like an amateur. This guy is looking as unimpressive and dangerous as many thought.
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
Last week, Rush actually said he hoped that Obama would fail. Rush threw the first stone and I think Obama's point was please work with me, don't just bend over and take it from Rush to make him and his dittoheads happy.









I keep seeing these claims that Obama is like Lenin and joe has Obama and Marx on his avatar like that. But I don't think you guys truly understand the complxity of what you are saying. There are numerous substantial differences between Marx and Lenin, the most notable being revolution versus evolution in reaching a socialist state.

Point is, I wish people would not just throw around these terms like "Marxist" or "socialist" when there are so many gradations of what you are talking about economically that one cannot even being to count them.
Click to expand...

I don't care about subtleties in method. I don't want this great country to sink in that pit.
 
#89
#89
nickknx865 said:
From everything from ignoring CIA reports that there were plans for a terrorist attack in the works, to leaving New Orleans for dead,
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was the one that ignored CIA reports about a future terrorist attack.You do know the WTC was first attacked under Clinton's watch?Ever heard of the USS Cole?


Left NO for dead??? The Mayor of NO is who screwed up, if you want to blame a natural disaster on a person then he's the one to blame.Ever seen the pic of all the school buses sitting under water in a parking lot in NO? The mayor blew the storm off and it cost people their lives.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
nickknx865 said:
Actually, if you wanted to get technical about it....

Police force? Government ran program = Socialist

Fire Department? Government ran = Socialist

Military? Government ran defense = Socialist
Click to expand...

what kind of idiots are employed by the school you recently graduated from? They can't be considered teachers if they are that completely ignorant of the Constitutionally mandated powers of the government.
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
Last week, Rush actually said he hoped that Obama would fail. Rush threw the first stone and I think Obama's point was please work with me, don't just bend over and take it from Rush to make him and his dittoheads happy.









I keep seeing these claims that Obama is like Lenin and joe has Obama and Marx on his avatar like that. But I don't think you guys truly understand the complxity of what you are saying. There are numerous substantial differences between Marx and Lenin, the most notable being revolution versus evolution in reaching a socialist state.

Point is, I wish people would not just throw around these terms like "Marxist" or "socialist" when there are so many gradations of what you are talking about economically that one cannot even being to count them.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I posted "Euro Socialist" which is the model he is looking to, if I am to take his statements and campaign rhetoric at face value this is an accurate assessment.
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
Even those of you who didn't borrow a dime or get a cent in scholarships to go to UT, you are benefiting from SOCIALISM!
Click to expand...

How? Because I received a public education? Trust me the education I received was at best average. Much like our school system in general.
 
#93
#93
KB5252 said:
How? Because I received a public education? Trust me the education I received was at best average. Much like our school system in general.
Click to expand...
why bother responding to silliness of that nature. Clearly our education system would be better if we gave everyone their tax dollars back and let them choose their own school to pay for.

LGs socialism argument just doesn't work because it presumes no other alternative could exist, which is senseless. In any other system, the teachers' union wouldn't exist and those who are pure detriment to the system likely wouldn't spend the money to attend.
 
#94
#94
BigPapaVol said:
why bother responding to silliness of that nature. Clearly our education system would be better if we gave everyone their tax dollars back and let them choose their own school to pay for.

LGs socialism argument just doesn't work because it presumes no other alternative could exist, which is senseless. In any other system, the teachers' union wouldn't exist and those who are pure detriment to the system likely wouldn't spend the money to attend.
Click to expand...

lawyers get a lot of money from socialist dems. dems want companies to be sued at the drop of a hat. it's sad but that is what America has come too.

it is sad that we've gotten to point that people only think the government can solve our problems. it's really sad.
 
#95
#95
BigPapaVol said:
why bother responding to silliness of that nature. Clearly our education system would be better if we gave everyone their tax dollars back and let them choose their own school to pay for.

LGs socialism argument just doesn't work because it presumes no other alternative could exist, which is senseless. In any other system, the teachers' union wouldn't exist and those who are pure detriment to the system likely wouldn't spend the money to attend.
Click to expand...


You are missing the forest for the trees. Technically speaking, any government program that relies on tax dollars to deliver a public good or service has an element of socialism to it because it transfers wealth from the top to the at large population.

If I make $200,000 a year and live in a $400,000 house, my property tax bill is higher than the guy making $50,000 a year living in a $100,000 house. And let's say I don't even have any kids. Property taxes are used largely to pay for schools. That is technically socialism.

If I make $75,000 a year but work out of my home and walk to the grocery store, the sales taxes I pay that go to build roads for the guy making $25,000 a year to drive to his job, that's socialism.

Same with Medicare taxes. And federal tax dollars going to Medicaid. And state tax dollars going to research a disease you cannot possibly ever have (but your neighbor might). And on and on and on.

Point is, the conservative commentators are like 7 year olds who have hit on what they think is a winning strategy, which is to throw around this term "socialism" as though it were some sort of armor-piercing munition that can help thwart what they really hate, which is the more short-sighted issue of their own taxes going up. In reality, the term "socialism" is extremely complex and is really already here in about a hundred ways every day of your life.

One can argue the merits of the tax cuts and increases, bailout plans, etc. But please don't fall into that trap of just going "But ... but ... but .. its socialist!" when the issue is so much more complicated than that.

This is what makes me so frustrated in dealing with the mindset of a Hannity or a Limbaugh. Its just taking the least common denominator buzz word and getting people to lock in on it without truly comprehending the issue at hand.
 
#96
#96
lawgator1 said:
You are missing the forest for the trees. Technically speaking, any government program that relies on tax dollars to deliver a public good or service has an element of socialism to it because it transfers wealth from the top to the at large population.

If I make $200,000 a year and live in a $400,000 house, my property tax bill is higher than the guy making $50,000 a year living in a $100,000 house. And let's say I don't even have any kids. Property taxes are used largely to pay for schools. That is technically socialism.

If I make $75,000 a year but work out of my home and walk to the grocery store, the sales taxes I pay that go to build roads for the guy making $25,000 a year to drive to his job, that's socialism.

Same with Medicare taxes. And federal tax dollars going to Medicaid. And state tax dollars going to research a disease you cannot possibly ever have (but your neighbor might). And on and on and on.

Point is, the conservative commentators are like 7 year olds who have hit on what they think is a winning strategy, which is to throw around this term "socialism" as though it were some sort of armor-piercing munition that can help thwart what they really hate, which is the more short-sighted issue of their own taxes going up. In reality, the term "socialism" is extremely complex and is really already here in about a hundred ways every day of your life.

One can argue the merits of the tax cuts and increases, bailout plans, etc. But please don't fall into that trap of just going "But ... but ... but .. its socialist!" when the issue is so much more complicated than that.

This is what makes me so frustrated in dealing with the mindset of a Hannity or a Limbaugh. Its just taking the least common denominator buzz word and getting people to lock in on it without truly comprehending the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

it's the same with you libs. you think the government is the sole cure all. you guys will complain about a company spending millions to redecorate some office but have no problems allowing the government waste billions.

if you don't think the government wanting to run banks or take over the oil industry isn't socialism, then we need to just give up now and everyone quit their jobs.
 
#97
#97
joevol320 said:
it's the same with you libs. you think the government is the sole cure all. you guys will complain about a company spending millions to redecorate some office but have no problems allowing the government waste billions.

if you don't think the government wanting to run banks or take over the oil industry isn't socialism, then we need to just give up now and everyone quit their jobs.
Click to expand...


As a left of center kind of guy ("not sure if I completely qualify for your label as a "lib") I would never say that the government has all the answers. Far from it. And government waste is an enormous problem and I support getting rid of all these pet spending plans in both bailout bills. Drives me nuts that people get away with that kind of thing.

And I do not like the notion of the government, as you put it, "take over" or "wanting to run" the oil industry or the banks. But where is the line? They already subsidize -- and have for many years -- certain parts of the oil industry. They heavily regulate banks.

What is it that has change, or is about to change, that causes you this concern? Is it the prospect of the government owning a piece of an oil company or a bank? Well, if so, what's the difference between a tax break for an oil company meant for the generation of creating a future public benefit in alternative oil versus, say, owning 100 shares of BP?
 
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
You are missing the forest for the trees. Technically speaking, any government program that relies on tax dollars to deliver a public good or service has an element of socialism to it because it transfers wealth from the top to the at large population.

If I make $200,000 a year and live in a $400,000 house, my property tax bill is higher than the guy making $50,000 a year living in a $100,000 house. And let's say I don't even have any kids. Property taxes are used largely to pay for schools. That is technically socialism.

If I make $75,000 a year but work out of my home and walk to the grocery store, the sales taxes I pay that go to build roads for the guy making $25,000 a year to drive to his job, that's socialism.

Same with Medicare taxes. And federal tax dollars going to Medicaid. And state tax dollars going to research a disease you cannot possibly ever have (but your neighbor might). And on and on and on.

Point is, the conservative commentators are like 7 year olds who have hit on what they think is a winning strategy, which is to throw around this term "socialism" as though it were some sort of armor-piercing munition that can help thwart what they really hate, which is the more short-sighted issue of their own taxes going up. In reality, the term "socialism" is extremely complex and is really already here in about a hundred ways every day of your life.

One can argue the merits of the tax cuts and increases, bailout plans, etc. But please don't fall into that trap of just going "But ... but ... but .. its socialist!" when the issue is so much more complicated than that.

This is what makes me so frustrated in dealing with the mindset of a Hannity or a Limbaugh. Its just taking the least common denominator buzz word and getting people to lock in on it without truly comprehending the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

You Libs like to say that things are always more complicated than the Conservatives can comprehend. The fact is most of these subjects are pretty simple. You just don't like the right answer.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top