Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics The USA without liberalism! What would it look like
TOPIC: The USA without liberalism! What would it look like
Created by: sappholovers
Original Starting post for this thread:
So a number of you in this Forum are always lambasting liberalism and calling it a mental disorder, and one of you have called for death to liberals.

So let's test the capacity of anti-liberals or the opposition to liberals to imagine a USA without liberalism?

What would an ideal USA without liberalism look like to you?

What if we had never had liberal movements in the USA, and by liberal movements I include freedrom and equality struggles for minorities and women and labor movements and movements to regulate the market so as to prevent monopolies and trusts. I'd also include FDR's legislation that brought us Social Security, and I'd include much of the environmental movement to protect air and water and earth and natural resources to be liberal.

I'd also include the American revolution itself--as well as the abolition movement--to be liberal, but we can debate that if you want?

So, Cons, here's your chance to engage in some more mental masturbation--the wet dream of a USA without liberalism. So describe such a country?

Or let's say if Conservative Republicans controlled the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for the next 50 years, what would America look like in 2058?

GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 96   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Who the Hard Leftists are

The history of NeoCommunism is well known. It starts with the 68'ers in Europe -- les Soixant-huiteurs, named after the 1968 student riots, which served as the major agitprop opportunity. Radicalized youth were created and went on to careers in poltiics. People such as former German Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who now literally works for the Russians, bought by the giant oil monopoly Gazprom. German anarchist and Green politician Joschka Fischer actually has now turned against his old comrades. Where have we seen this before?

In the US, of course, the NeoCommunists were the Sixties Radicals who decided to carry on a "Long March through the Institutions." That means the college faculties, the high schools, the media, Hollywood, and government. Today, major foundations started by Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie have turned Hard Left. Capitalist money is turned against the very engines of prosperity.

Hillary Clinton's puppy love for Saul Alinsky, when she was a college student in the Sixties, is symbolic of the way the "new" radicals fell in love with the old, hard-line Communists. Hillary Clinton started her adult life as a millenarian zealot, following the old prophet of radicalism. It's anybody's guess what she believes today, but I suspect it's not the Methodism of her youth. The methods of the Democratic Party today are taken straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook.

Today The New York Times celebrates the passing of old Communists with lavish obituaries. The NYT Editorial Page has now turned into a mud-throwing gallery for the nasty Left, as shown last week by Gail Collins' weird column on Newt Gingrich's decision not to run for President. It was titled "Ah, Newtie, we hardly knew ye!" Gail Collins is actually the Op-Ed Page Editor of the New York Times, one of the most sought-after jobs in American newspapers. She is engaging in juvenile mudslinging, which is frankly idiotic, because Newt Gingrich happens to be a real history professor, a highly successful electoral politician, a novelist, and one of the most creative policy thinkers in the country. But the Grey Lady will publish such childish rants without hesitation.

(Collins also enabled the disinformation team of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to dump blatantly false agitprop into its Op-Ed pages about the Iraq invasion, triggering a massive Leftist assault on George W. Bush, and ending with the sentence of Scooter Libby now under appeal, in lieu of bigger scapegoats.)

The aging New Left has simply become the Neocommunist Left. If you don't believe it, just ask them politely what they really believe. Or check out Moveon*org and many other locations on the web. It's not a secret.

Methods

The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like MoveOn*org and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);

The need to whip up the rage of the faithful with constant disinformation about the enemy (i.e., America and conservatives);

The infiltration of media and government. Members of the seventies left are sprinkled throughout these institutions, carrying out the long march. These tricks are all straight out of the old, old playbook. Karl Marx really was a genius agitator and revolutionary plotter, though nothing else. Marx is still the model.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Cut Defense by 10-20 percent, but don't worry Liberals will still keep our country safe. If not they will just find a way to blame Bush and the republicans for the next attack on their watch. Oh but Liberals wonder why oh why people have the impression that they are weak on national defense..........We need a stronger and larger military not a weaker less funded military. God I hope Sapp isn't an Obama national security adviser.........Liberals call our troops "torturers" down in Gitmo. They talk about about cutting funds to the military yet they say they're going to give vets more benefits. So screw the soldiers who are fighting, but take care of those who are not fighting. I think the Military have some of the highest paying jobs in this country. I think we need to try and win in Iraq and establish a long term base, probably in the Northern Region. If we can do this and insure the relative security and safety of the troops, then what's wrong with 100 years? If soldiers are not being attacked and the Iraqi people are cool with us having a base in the northern part of the country, where we are more welcome, then why the hell not? Seems like a good idea to me, Iran won't like it, but that just adds to the appeal.

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Who the Hard Leftists are

The history of NeoCommunism is well known. It starts with the 68'ers in Europe -- les Soixant-huiteurs, named after the 1968 student riots, which served as the major agitprop opportunity. Radicalized youth were created and went on to careers in poltiics. People such as former German Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who now literally works for the Russians, bought by the giant oil monopoly Gazprom. German anarchist and Green politician Joschka Fischer actually has now turned against his old comrades. Where have we seen this before?

In the US, of course, the NeoCommunists were the Sixties Radicals who decided to carry on a "Long March through the Institutions." That means the college faculties, the high schools, the media, Hollywood, and government. Today, major foundations started by Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie have turned Hard Left. Capitalist money is turned against the very engines of prosperity.

Hillary Clinton's puppy love for Saul Alinsky, when she was a college student in the Sixties, is symbolic of the way the "new" radicals fell in love with the old, hard-line Communists. Hillary Clinton started her adult life as a millenarian zealot, following the old prophet of radicalism. It's anybody's guess what she believes today, but I suspect it's not the Methodism of her youth. The methods of the Democratic Party today are taken straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook.

Today The New York Times celebrates the passing of old Communists with lavish obituaries. The NYT Editorial Page has now turned into a mud-throwing gallery for the nasty Left, as shown last week by Gail Collins' weird column on Newt Gingrich's decision not to run for President. It was titled "Ah, Newtie, we hardly knew ye!" Gail Collins is actually the Op-Ed Page Editor of the New York Times, one of the most sought-after jobs in American newspapers. She is engaging in juvenile mudslinging, which is frankly idiotic, because Newt Gingrich happens to be a real history professor, a highly successful electoral politician, a novelist, and one of the most creative policy thinkers in the country. But the Grey Lady will publish such childish rants without hesitation.

(Collins also enabled the disinformation team of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to dump blatantly false agitprop into its Op-Ed pages about the Iraq invasion, triggering a massive Leftist assault on George W. Bush, and ending with the sentence of Scooter Libby now under appeal, in lieu of bigger scapegoats.)

The aging New Left has simply become the Neocommunist Left. If you don't believe it, just ask them politely what they really believe. Or check out Moveon*org and many other locations on the web. It's not a secret.

Methods

The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like MoveOn*org and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);

The need to whip up the rage of the faithful with constant disinformation about the enemy (i.e., America and conservatives);

The infiltration of media and government. Members of the seventies left are sprinkled throughout these institutions, carrying out the long march. These tricks are all straight out of the old, old playbook. Karl Marx really was a genius agitator and revolutionary plotter, though nothing else. Marx is still the model.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Who the Hard Leftists are

The history of NeoCommunism is well known. It starts with the 68'ers in Europe -- les Soixant-huiteurs, named after the 1968 student riots, which served as the major agitprop opportunity. Radicalized youth were created and went on to careers in poltiics. People such as former German Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who now literally works for the Russians, bought by the giant oil monopoly Gazprom. German anarchist and Green politician Joschka Fischer actually has now turned against his old comrades. Where have we seen this before?

In the US, of course, the NeoCommunists were the Sixties Radicals who decided to carry on a "Long March through the Institutions." That means the college faculties, the high schools, the media, Hollywood, and government. Today, major foundations started by Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie have turned Hard Left. Capitalist money is turned against the very engines of prosperity.

Hillary Clinton's puppy love for Saul Alinsky, when she was a college student in the Sixties, is symbolic of the way the "new" radicals fell in love with the old, hard-line Communists. Hillary Clinton started her adult life as a millenarian zealot, following the old prophet of radicalism. It's anybody's guess what she believes today, but I suspect it's not the Methodism of her youth. The methods of the Democratic Party today are taken straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook.

Today The New York Times celebrates the passing of old Communists with lavish obituaries. The NYT Editorial Page has now turned into a mud-throwing gallery for the nasty Left, as shown last week by Gail Collins' weird column on Newt Gingrich's decision not to run for President. It was titled "Ah, Newtie, we hardly knew ye!" Gail Collins is actually the Op-Ed Page Editor of the New York Times, one of the most sought-after jobs in American newspapers. She is engaging in juvenile mudslinging, which is frankly idiotic, because Newt Gingrich happens to be a real history professor, a highly successful electoral politician, a novelist, and one of the most creative policy thinkers in the country. But the Grey Lady will publish such childish rants without hesitation.

(Collins also enabled the disinformation team of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to dump blatantly false agitprop into its Op-Ed pages about the Iraq invasion, triggering a massive Leftist assault on George W. Bush, and ending with the sentence of Scooter Libby now under appeal, in lieu of bigger scapegoats.)

The aging New Left has simply become the Neocommunist Left. If you don't believe it, just ask them politely what they really believe. Or check out Moveon*org and many other locations on the web. It's not a secret.

Methods

The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like MoveOn*org and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);

The need to whip up the rage of the faithful with constant disinformation about the enemy (i.e., America and conservatives);

The infiltration of media and government. Members of the seventies left are sprinkled throughout these institutions, carrying out the long march. These tricks are all straight out of the old, old playbook. Karl Marx really was a genius agitator and revolutionary plotter, though nothing else. Marx is still the model.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
debjack:

Can you read beyond a 3rd grade level?

You just claimed that I never mention waste or fraud in welfare.

Try looking at what I said in my previous post:

"I'd say waste in defense spending costs us a lot more than waste and abuse and fraud in welfare/workfare spending."

Isn't this a recognition on my part that there is waste and fraud in welfare/workfare spending?

So you are still evading my question. What percentage of defense spending is waste or fraud?

The USA spends more on defense than all the other countries of the world combined. We spend 20% of our budget on defense and only 1% on welfare/workfare/food stamps.

We spend 8% of the budget now on interest on the debt. Why don't you complain about the waste of money on the interest on the debt caused by Bush's massive government spending and lowering of taxes on the rich at the same time?

Why do you just whine about welfare waste? Why don't you whine about tax cheats and tax loopholes and government spending on subsidies to rich farmers?

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Jack, he doesn't have time to write or call anybody. He has students to teach, between being in the forum almost 24/7. College professor or HS or elementary, you have to spend sometime in the classroom. Hell he probably doesn't even have time to shit or eat, let alone do anything other than Whine!

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19580 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
A Democratic Party with a strong anti-military, anti-victory wing would never have supported a strong national defense, and would not have been trusted in the face of the obvious menace of Stalin and his heirs.

Today the voters have not yet caught on to the real radicalism of the Left. If they do, Democrats will once again have to choose between the totalitarian impulse and being small d-democrats. Because our Democrats are emphatically not small-d democrats. They will use and manipulate their voters, but they don't listen to them. Whenever possible, they accomplish unpopular policy initiatives through the courts, our least democratic government mechanism, one never designed to lead in formulating social policy.

The NeoCommies may not be conspirators, but they are heirs to an international political movement that was built on conspiracies.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
debjack:

Could you try answering my question more directly?

Do you believe there is waste and fraud and abuse in defense spending in this country?

Do you think every dollar spent on defense in this country is wisely and justly spent, and that we are free of corruption and abuse and fraud and waste or pork barrel spending on defense?

What percentage of defense spending is wasteful in your view?

Maybe 1% out of the 20% Well, we only spend 1% of the budget on welfare while we spend 20% on defense spending. I'd say waste in defense spending costs us a lot more than waste and abuse and fraud in welfare/workfare spending.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Barack Hussein Obama, born in Hawaii to a radical Muslim father and an atheist mother who divorced and married another radical Muslim who sent Hussein to a Muslim school.. Now he attends and is mentored by a black radical church who bestowed honors on Farrakhan(sp) a known racist and anti Semite. He accepts money, advice and comfort from a Syrian crook indicted and going on trial in March(Antoin Rezko, Chicago slum lord), a man who supports the PLO( Rashid Alidi ) and Bill Ayers (A central figure in the Weathermen, New Left & SDS, Ayers lived underground for ten years), who bombed the pentagon, the US Capitol and NY police station and declared war against the USA...hussein is a socialist, the most liberal voting record(when he votes, he also has the most present votes) in the US Senate. Do we really want or need such an amateur as President?...when you tell the story tell the WHOLE story!

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 96   End
TOPIC: The USA without liberalism! What would it look like