ACORN - Page 35

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-10-2010, 01:56 AM

The point that is escaping you gentlemen is that corporations consist only of humans, trying to work in concert to maintain and increase wealth, not only theirs but of others as well. With families, health care benefit plans, and retirements, and so on. With knowledge and deep consideration, you really can't part the corporate from the human. Such knowledge and consideration is the more lacking the farther Left you go.

This wealth-making is no dishonorable thing, save among the economically illiterate -- in which body I do not number myself, all right?

I wish you would stop mentally masturbating about me running away: I know more about socialism than you do, and I know how capital-S Socialism would come to the capitalist and libertarian United States. The only way it could survive would be to come by claiming to be something else. That is precisely the claim you are making, and the Administration as well. So you're a tool for liars and economic illiterates (this is necessary to become a socialist) and proponents of legalized thieving, aren't you? I know you cannot admit any of that, but this does not mean the libertarian capitalists can't see it, and we do.

Once we get the present passel of idiots voted out of Washington, we can relieve some of our worries. And prosper. Mr. Obama thinks and says we should, well, ration our prosperity. Whaaat? There's pure-quill Socialism, right there before your purblind eye, and you can't recognize it, Redux.

05-10-2010, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

..I wish you would stop mentally masturbating about me running away: I know more about socialism than you do, and I know how capital-S Socialism would come to the capitalist and libertarian United States.

Dude....the libertarian United States? What world (or what century) are you living in?

We havent had a political/economic system resembling a libertarian United States since the 19th century Guilded Age of monopolies, robber barons, and worker exploitation.

And, you still havent answered the question about how Obama's health care reform or bank bailouts (which btw was a Bush program and mostly repaid) or a progressive tax policy or govt regulation of the private sector are capital-S Socialism.

Or even how the GM bailout, in which the workers are not employees of the "state", was not done to benefit workers nor envisioned as a permanment govt holding, is capital-S Socialism.

And, I am still waiting for your explanation of how gun control legislation leads to genocide. You've been running away from that one for more than six months now.

Undertoad · 05-10-2010, 10:06 AM

You're wasting your time with UG. He's a colorful and sophisticated writer, but he's not a very strong reader. He has not been shown to digest and comprehend others' posts in order to have a conversation, much less a reasonable argument or debate. Your point of view is irrelevant to him; he feels he cannot learn from anyone and is only here to lecture. He's as closed a book as you'll find. And that's why his shit can safely be ignored. And that's what I recommend.

05-10-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You're wasting your time with UG. He's a colorful and sophisticated writer, but he's not a very strong reader...

I am of the belief that colorful and sophisticated writing should at least be acknowledged.

It is far more creative than simply snipping and pasting and flooding discussions by attempting to pass someone else's ideological writings off as factual.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-31-2010, 05:49 AM

I can comprehend reasonable arguments. That mostly means I can't really follow Redux's thinking, as I do not believe it to be honest, and only occasionally informed.

For an instance, he tells us progressive taxation is somehow not Socialist, capital S. There is no socialist economy that doesn't feature progressive taxation. Yet he blandly insists that this socialistic policy is somehow not socialist. Can't buy that one.

The Gilded Age, despite its many sins, was also quite the period of economic growth. Fretting about economic growth, being sure it must somehow be inherently bad, seems another mental bad habit of socialists, and it sure seems to have bothered Redux.

I am also certain that when I compose the case for gun control as a necessary precondition for genocide and hence intimately connected with it, that the case I make, regardless of when I make it, will persuade everyone. Everyone. Even Redux will have an epiphany. It's simply that good and that carefully examined. Oh, it's also put together by Redux's coreligionists; did he know that? He really should not try to line up sixteen different rationalizations and miserable excuses for not crediting it, for he cannot do this and maintain intellectual honesty. Disliking me is no excuse whatsoever. There are dead folks out there who got that way because guns were denied them -- while not to others. The nature and affiliations of those others become important to the matter.

06-03-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I can comprehend reasonable arguments. That mostly means I can't really follow Redux's thinking, as I do not believe it to be honest, and only occasionally informed.

For an instance, he tells us progressive taxation is somehow not Socialist, capital S. There is no socialist economy that doesn't feature progressive taxation. Yet he blandly insists that this socialistic policy is somehow not socialist. Can't buy that one.

Given that every president since Teddy Roosevelt has supported progressive taxation (differeing only on the rates), I guess that makes them all socialists, not just Obama.

And given that every western democracy has some form of progressive taxation, that would make them all socialists regimes.

Quote:

I am also certain that when I compose the case for gun control as a necessary precondition for genocide and hence intimately connected with it, that the case I make, regardless of when I make it, will persuade everyone. Everyone. Even Redux will have an epiphany. It's simply that good and that carefully examined. Oh, it's also put together by Redux's coreligionists; did he know that?.

I've been waiting more than six months now for your carefully crafted dissertation that gun control leads to genocide.

Hopefully, it wil be based on more than my "co-religionists" - the JPFO and other extreme right wing organizations who somehow think democratic governments with checks and balances are the same as Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao' China, etc.

TheMercenary · 06-03-2010, 07:19 PM

The Fraud of Progressive Nobility

Quote:

Barack Obama has admitted the need to break his most celebrated campaign promise. Suddenly he is "agnostic" on increasing taxes for people earning less than $250,000. Nine years ago, as an Illinois state senator, Obama criticized the Supreme Court for not removing a roadblock that forbids Washington to redistribute income. That roadblock is the United States Constitution.

Washington routinely redistributes income within American society. When Joe Taxpayer receives government benefits that exceed what he pays in taxes, the effect is what the Heritage Foundation calls a "distributional deficit." Joe's higher-earning fellow taxpayers must fill that deficit. "Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups." The very idea that human nature or any natural law would be allowed to control humans or nature nauseates progressives. For example, allowing markets to be free and the weather to do its thing are immoral. So then, government must make people and science play fairly. Steeply graduated taxation for financing that government constitutes noble robbery.

George Mason University economics professor Don Boudreaux, who is also a Café Hayek blogger, explains his acid test for determining the genuineness of someone's nobility.

Desire to help others is noble. It's noble, though, not in and of itself. It's noble only if it's likely to lead to helping others who truly need help. A desire to help others that prompts well-meaning people to address nonexistent problems isn't so much noble as it is misguided and, possibly, dangerous.

Misguided nobility tends to focus people on intent, not results. Forty years of Great Society-inspired welfarism has brought a 70-percent illegitimate birthrate among blacks -- a 218-percent explosion since the LBJ years. The non-Hispanic white illegitimacy rate hovers below 12 percent. Amid a finger-pointing blame-fest, "minority advocates" still supply the crutches on which minorities lean. For instance, affirmative action strengthens the haplessness in "protected classes" that motivated liberals to "protect" those classes in the first place.

Interestingly, Johns Hopkins and Syracuse Universities researchers found that immigrant black children attend college at a 25 percent higher rate, and upper echelon schools at a four times higher rate, than multigenerational African-American children. Princeton University and University of Pennsylvania sociologists determined that immigrants comprise 27 percent of blacks at "selective" colleges and a whopping 41 percent at Ivy League institutions despite immigrants comprising only 13 percent of early college-aged blacks in general. A black person has to be born into the victimhood peddled by the American progressive in order to fall for that victimhood.

In order to be progressive, one must keep up the appearance of helping the "less fortunate," pay no attention to the effects of said help, and soak up the feel-good one gets when the world praises the wonderfulness of one's intentions.

Professor Boudreaux points out the absurdity of a Macy's department store poster campaign which implies that 38 million Americans routinely go hungry.

... because feeding oneself and one's family is perhaps the most fundamental of all human impulses, if so many Americans were truly "at risk of hunger" on a regular basis, then it is nearly impossible to explain why poor Americans are so richly endowed with goods and services far less necessary to survival than food.

The Heritage Foundation's Ralph Rector observed that the "typical American categorized as 'poor' by the government" owns a refrigerator, stove, washing machine, home air conditioning, microwave, color TV, VCR, stereo, at least one car, and 30 percent of the time, two cars.

Evidently, then, self-anointed noble watchdogs want us to believe that starving poor people in the throes of fighting off a survival impulse transmitted by their stomachs to their brains leave air-conditioned homes and drive air-conditioned cars to appliance stores, where they buy microwave ovens to reheat nonexistent food that they didn't buy because they couldn't afford it. Such rationale passes for clear thought among progressives, who push taxpayer funding for feel-good programs based on flawed science and economics.

If allowed to remain off-leash, where will noble progressives take America?

The Tax Foundation found that President Obama's policies would massively increase income redistribution. Already, 60 percent of Americans are "net 'receivers' of federal government benefits." Most families earning no more than $86,000 currently pay less federal tax than the dollar-value of government benefits that they collect. The new threshold will grow to $109,000 if Obama gets his way on health care, carbon "cap-and-trade," and new taxes on the wealthy. The president's plans would annually take almost $1 trillion from the top-earning 30 percent of families and hand it to the bottom 70 percent. Essentially, three of ten families will pay all federal bills for the remaining seven.

Even before considering Obama's hefty redistributionism, every federal tax dollar paid by America's lowest earners garners for those earners $10.44 in federal benefits. The president's 2012 reelection campaign slogan will be, "Open a progressive savings account. Hold out your hand and I'll double your 1,000-percent interest rate."

Another Tax Foundation study puts a frightening perspective on Obama's grotesque spending. Eliminating the federal deficit could require a 95.2-percent tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. Beatle George Harrison captured his government's arrogance back when he was enduring confiscatory taxation. Harrison wrote, "Should five percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all." One wonders who it is that the noble progressives think will create the jobs they keep promising when $952 of every $1,000 earned by small business owners is used to pay unemployment compensation for people who have no job and no intention of getting one as long as the noble progressives have their backs.

Reality-blind progressives like Barack Obama and the leftist ideologues who inhabit Capital Hill will spend and borrow and tax and spend even as prosperity evaporates. They will "spread the wealth" so thinly that only the super-wealthy will have any wealth left to confiscate for spreading. Progressives' tax-the-rich agenda could have the insidious effect of encouraging the wealthy to work less in order to avoid being nobly robbed of more of their wealth. If Barack Obama somehow rams through his prosperity-killing agenda, then John Galt will emerge from the mountains of Colorado to pluck the achievers from society once again.

A physicist and former high-tech executive, Chuck Rogér was a columnist for a Phoenix newspaper

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ive_nobil.html

06-05-2010, 11:12 AM

Failed!

Just another libertarian looney tune.

Unless you think middle class tax relief is socialist.

Contributing to the debt? Reagan set the all-time record....adding more debt than all previous presidents combined.....only to be surpassed by Bush, who doubled the debt in his eight years. Those damn socialists!

Libertarians cant point to any successful application of their core principles in any country in the world.

Perhaps you or UG can be the first to demonstrate where libertarian "free market" principles have made a country stronger.

So whats left for you guys to do? Scream "socialists!" and convince yourself, since you cant convince others.

TheMercenary · 06-07-2010, 08:10 PM

Well done Comrade!

Your Socialist Demoncratic Workers Party will be proud!

But you really can't dispute the facts can you Comrade?

06-07-2010, 09:47 PM

What facts? Please point to any facts in your libertarian partisan diatribe.

Or are you referring to the fact that, as spex pointed out, Reagan and Bush were the biggest deficit spenders in history.

Will Obama rise to their level or surpass them? Perhaps, but why would that make him more of a socialist than his predecessors? Because he "redistributed wealth" with bigger middle class tax cuts/tax relief than those predecessors?

And what policies initiated by progressives in the last 50-75 years have been bad for the country? Civil rights, environmental regulations, worker protections and workplace safety regulations, consumer protection regulations, govt grants to working class families to provide greater access to higher education?...or maybe just Social Security and Medicare that extended the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Americans since they were implemented.

I'm still looking one example of a real world, successful libertarian policy that has benefited any country.

Or maybe just the fact that you flood discussions with partisan opinions and try to pass them off as factual.

TheMercenary · 06-09-2010, 05:24 PM

06-09-2010, 06:34 PM

Yeah...I agree its laughable.

A typical pattern with you and the guerrilla.

You attack, I respond, he runs away and you morph into your laughing/popcorn mode.

Neither one of you willing to actually engage in a discussion and defend your own positions.

What a surprise!

classicman · 06-09-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote: