Did anyone just see that Obama speech?

[ttosh]

Flat taxes are bad because they favor those who can afford not to "consume."

Could you elaborate a bit more on that? I am not sure how I see how this makes it bad or unfair at all. Those who can afford usually purchase more than those who cannot. And in this case tax does not even apply till after the poverty level. I do not understand your thinking here.

 

[defpearlpilot]

Flat taxes are bad because they favor those who can afford not to "consume."

Could you elaborate a bit more on that? I am not sure how I see how this makes it bad or unfair at all. Those who can afford usually purchase more than those who cannot. And in this case tax does not even apply till after the poverty level. I do not understand your thinking here.

Actually, that's not true. Those who can afford to purchase more keep their money. Read any book on building wealth and that is their advice. Always "pay yourself first."

When you said flat tax, I thought you meant in the strictest sense. The fair tax has a prebate for the poverty level.

 

[ttosh]

Flat taxes are bad because they favor those who can afford not to "consume."

Could you elaborate a bit more on that? I am not sure how I see how this makes it bad or unfair at all. Those who can afford usually purchase more than those who cannot. And in this case tax does not even apply till after the poverty level. I do not understand your thinking here.

Actually, that's not true. Those who can afford to purchase more keep their money. Read any book on building wealth and that is their advice. Always "pay yourself first."

When you said flat tax, I thought you meant in the strictest sense. The fair tax has a prebate for the poverty level.

Gotcha, and the fair tax is what I favor as posted above. I just referenced the flat tax as being better than our current system IMHO. You are correct about those who have money keep money and add to it, as this is easier to do with wealth in general. But as far as taxes are concerned and how much they spend they still contribute more per year than somebody at poverty level as they could make one purchase and exceed this, which is common sense.

 

[Ultron]

There was a video on Youtube or somewhere that I saw where they compared Bush's speeches as governor and as president. SOMETHING happened to that man. Because now, he's a blathering idiot. IF Bush spoke now how he did back then, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's because English is my second language but I find that I have more respect for people that can actually speak it properly. And I don't mean strict grammar and all that. But Bush is constantly stuttering and looking for the words to say which gives me the impression that he really has no idea what is going on. Whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever, that is plan to see.

That's a great point....I agree 100%. I was actually quite smitten by W when he was Governor and he started getting press for "Compassionate Conservatism", etc.....he was a good speaker: eloquent, could connect with people without coming across as a dolt. I don't know what happened in the White House....maybe he did too many whippets? Everyone makes gaffs when you're speaking in public consistently (you should hear the Mayor of Chicago), but there was a big transition with George, from Gov to Pres.

 

[Jordon]

There was a video on Youtube or somewhere that I saw where they compared Bush's speeches as governor and as president. SOMETHING happened to that man. Because now, he's a blathering idiot. IF Bush spoke now how he did back then, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's because English is my second language but I find that I have more respect for people that can actually speak it properly. And I don't mean strict grammar and all that. But Bush is constantly stuttering and looking for the words to say which gives me the impression that he really has no idea what is going on. Whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever, that is plan to see.

That's a great point....I agree 100%. I was actually quite smitten by W when he was Governor and he started getting press for "Compassionate Conservatism", etc.....he was a good speaker: eloquent, could connect with people without coming across as a dolt. I don't know what happened in the White House....maybe he did too many whippets? Everyone makes gaffs when you're speaking in public consistently (you should hear the Mayor of Chicago), but there was a big transition with George, from Gov to Pres.

I don't live in the city, but I enjoy Daily's talks. Something about him is very entertaining.

 

[Phishphood]

Why do I keep reading this thread?

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3) Aboltion of all rights of inheritance.

4) Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

5) Centralization of credit in the banks of state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8) Equal obligation of all work. Establishment of industrial armies; especially for agriculture.

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equal distribution of populance over the country.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its' present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

True, but its a massive oversimplification to say that anyone advocating for higher taxes, centralization of banks, or more governmental influence in general is a communist. Its simply wrong

So, when a conservative person assails a liberal candidate as being "socialist" or "communist", the reference is that the conservative person is against higher taxes, loss of personal wealth and property, and loss of personal freedoms to the state, for whatever public purpose the funds may be put to, or for whatever public security or public good may come from surrendering the right to make decisions for yourself regarding where you live, where you work, whether you choose to own firearms, where your kids go to school, where you go to church, etc., etc.......

That's not describing Marxism, that's describing fascism. Marx said himself that the revolution should not contain any political messages other than what is dictated by the proletariat. Fascists, like Mussolini, did dictate that education should be centered around making loyal soldiers. He did make an official state religion. He did use violent force to control the people's ability to strike back at the government. Of course one could make numerous parallels to Stalin in this case, but Stalin injected a lot of his own personal beliefs into his system of government, and was very concerned with maintaining his position of absolute power. There are so many different takes on Marx's original ideas that to classify Marxism based on the actions of Stalin or Mao or anyone else would be absurd. Their actions are irrelevant in this argument

I never heard of an opposition to a liberal presidential candidate referring to a "violent overthrow of the government", I don't know where the heck that came from.

Seriously? The bourgeoisie are the ruling class, they control the means of production and therefore they control the economy. The goal of Communism is to put the means of production in the hands of the proletariat. This inevitably leads into open revolution, there's simply no other way for the working class to defeat the rulers of society who have access to trained police and army forces and have every incentive to stop the proletariat revolution. Of course there have been more moderate socialists who prefer reform over revolution, but this is a deviation from Marx's original idea. Marx believed that revolution must be spontaneous and swift to live up to its purpose. The revolution is the key to Marx's vision of a communist utopia, there's simply no way around it. Calling someone "Marxist" when they do not advocate a revolution is just totally inaccurate

[qipte]
I am opposed to Obama because he wants to take my money and property and freedoms, even more so than what is currently being stripped from me by the federal government, to give it to people I would not trust with a penny, to teach my kids things I disagree with, and to shape the values of the present society to ideals I am opposed to.

That's why I think he's a commie pinko faggot.[/quote]

I honestly hope that you're not serious about this. You're oversimplifying things so much that I can't see how you could have an accurate outlook on anything if this is your usual train of though. You're classifying anything that doesn't coincide with your views on personal liberties as "Communist" or "Marxist" even when the terms are simply inapplicable. By this logic anyone who makes an appeal to national pride is a fascist dictator. Anyone who wants small government is an Anarchist. Its just like the goth kids on south park who call everyone who doesn't agree with them a fascist conformist You can't possibly apply this logic to any situation and expect to get a balanced, accurate outlook on it.

 

[Copperhead]

...................and as usual, the lefty wackos miss the light-heartedness and humor, only to walk away muttering to themselves, 'cause no one else is listening...............

 

[Phishphood]

...................and as usual, the lefty wackos miss the light-heartedness and humor, only to walk away muttering to themselves, 'cause no one else is listening...............

Oh please. He was seriously claiming Obama was a Communist, which is just idiotic. I'm intelligent enough to get the humor "lolz commie pinko faggot" But he asked for someone to explain how Obama isn't a Marxist, that's what he got

 

[Copperhead]

"Oh please" yourself. You question me when I said there has never been a liberal U.S. Presidential candidate that has called for an out and out violent overthrow of the government of the United States, and I'm supposed to take you seriously?

How did you get on a computer anyway? I thought they locked you up in Bellevue after you climbed the Times building yesterday?

 

[Phishphood]

"Oh please" yourself. You question me when I said there has never been a liberal U.S. Presidential candidate that has called for an out and out violent overthrow of the government of the United States, and I'm supposed to take you seriously?

How did you get on a computer anyway? I thought they locked you up in Bellevue after you climbed the Times building yesterday?

Lol I didn't even realize I was responding to your post before, i mistook you for the first guy who called Obama a Marxist. My bad

The second part was a bit of misunderstanding. I misread and took it that you were saying that there was no violent revolution involved in Marxist theory since verderacer had said that. My point was that violent revolution is the cornerstone of Marxism and that since Obama hasn't said anything like that its simply wrong to call him a Marxist

 

[Copperhead]

I was actually supporting your argument that he's not really a commie, just that conservative people use that label as insult because of the parallels involved in The State And Village Which Raises Your Children And Runs Your Life.....
much in the same way that liberals call W a facist because of big government, Iraqi "genocide" and Homeland Security....he's not really the second coming of Hitler, but the other side of the aisle draws parallels to illustrate their point of view......

 

[verderacer]

And do you enjoy any of the gaffe's that Pelosi, Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy, Gore, Carter to only name a few, have made. One could easily claim they are stupid also but the media does not play them up. It only plays up ones from Bush to diminish and purposely incite disapproval of him as president. Errors are errors and any one who publicly speaks as much as any politician does will make some. It think how the left finds only errors with Bush speeches, word usage says more about how intellectually dishonest they are and not the other way around. I think its more important to listen to what it is they are speaking about rather than some small error in speaking or wording. I think content is more important.

There was a video on Youtube or somewhere that I saw where they compared Bush's speeches as governor and as president. SOMETHING happened to that man. Because now, he's a blathering idiot. IF Bush spoke now how he did back then, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's because English is my second language but I find that I have more respect for people that can actually speak it properly. And I don't mean strict grammar and all that. But Bush is constantly stuttering and looking for the words to say which gives me the impression that he really has no idea what is going on. Whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever, that is plan to see.

Do you think the same about Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurmond?

 

[defpearlpilot]

And do you enjoy any of the gaffe's that Pelosi, Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy, Gore, Carter to only name a few, have made. One could easily claim they are stupid also but the media does not play them up. It only plays up ones from Bush to diminish and purposely incite disapproval of him as president. Errors are errors and any one who publicly speaks as much as any politician does will make some. It think how the left finds only errors with Bush speeches, word usage says more about how intellectually dishonest they are and not the other way around. I think its more important to listen to what it is they are speaking about rather than some small error in speaking or wording. I think content is more important.

There was a video on Youtube or somewhere that I saw where they compared Bush's speeches as governor and as president. SOMETHING happened to that man. Because now, he's a blathering idiot. IF Bush spoke now how he did back then, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's because English is my second language but I find that I have more respect for people that can actually speak it properly. And I don't mean strict grammar and all that. But Bush is constantly stuttering and looking for the words to say which gives me the impression that he really has no idea what is going on. Whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever, that is plan to see.

Do you think the same about Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurmond?

Were they ever the president?

 

[Copperhead]

sp> President

 

[Phishphood]

I was actually supporting your argument that he's not really a commie, just that conservative people use that label as insult because of the parallels involved in The State And Village Which Raises Your Children And Runs Your Life.....
much in the same way that liberals call W a facist because of big government, Iraqi "genocide" and Homeland Security....he's not really the second coming of Hitler, but the other side of the aisle draws parallels to illustrate their point of view......

Yeah, I get that now. Once I reread and understood your post I was like

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

24 hours on and nothing to respond to. Damn.

 

[stratotone]

Do you think the same about Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurmond?

Were they ever the president?

Teddy does have the dubious distinction of being the only politician mentioned in this thread who killed a secretary.

 

[Copperhead]

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag
pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why
he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec.
171......
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed,
all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention
facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be
perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to
whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself
conveys a war like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should
be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the
song 'Id Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then
I might salute it."


I've got to find out if this is real. No way did he really say that, did he?

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

I've got to find out if this is real. No way did he really say that, did he?

If he did he's the most revolutionary American since 1774.

 

[Copperhead]

If he did he's the most retarded American since 1774.

Fixed!!