Conservative VS Liberal

[ariscus99 1]

Ari--I hang out with a group of old republican men, nobody is going to confuse me with one of them (and they have not influenced my thinking about politics either)

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

NEVER SAID ANYONE INFLUENCES THE WAY YOU THINK!!!!

READ THE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, your saying that if someone who didn't know you, walked into wherever it is that you hang out with the republican men, and saw you there, they wouldn't also think your a republican?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The first is the easiest, he very clearly said he'd like to spread the wealth around. That is socialism. Taking from the rich giving to the poor, redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Since the first taxes were collected by the federal government and then given back to the states, etc... it has been a redistribution of the wealth. It is a congressman's job to go to DC and bring back federal dollars to his/her district. So this whole arguement that it all started under Pres. Obama is just so much more BS from those on the right.

[BJean 16]

My brother is developmentally disabled and I can tell you it hurts him deeply when the word retard is used. It's no different than calling someone faggot, nigger, spic, kike, pape, and so forth. Politics aside, people should not be ridiculed because of their sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religion or disability.

I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this thread. You are all very knowledgable. Fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, let's not discredit ourselves by personally attacking others for expressing their opinions and resorting to name calling. It makes us no better than those who do the same.

I have no way of knowing how someone who is developmentally challenged feels about hearing the word "retard" so I certainly accept your word on the subject.

However, there's a difference between someone using the term to denote someone who is seeimgly not very bright when they are spouting politics, and someone who is actually developmentally challenged. Not that it is an acceptable term for anyone to use, admittedly.

But for someone to call the president or other black person a "nigger" is truly a different can of worms. The way I know this is because of the common usages of the word today.

For someone to call another person a "retard" they are accusing the person of not being very bright. For someone to call another person a "nigger" means that they are literally less of a human being, one who is inferior not just intellectually but also in every other way imaginable.

So I while I think your point is well taken, I disagree that the term "nigger" is on the same insult scale as some of the other slurs you listed. But then I don't use racial or intellectual slurs as a general rule. By the way, what's a pape? Did you mean pope?

[tdslf1 0]

Ari said,

We'll start with the first paragraph, because you still obviously are not getting what I'm saying. I did not say he is a terrorist, or a socialist, or a communist, BECAUSE of who he socializes with. I said that it is understandable that someone might think those things of him because of who he socializes with. That is the same point I made about you hanging around with certain types of people. I'm not saying that they influence you, I'm saying that they influence how people perceive you. If you either don't see that, or are denying it, you need to wake up. So let me ask you this point blank, yes or no; you see a group of guys standing on a corner, one is visibly selling drugs, do you, or do you not assume that they all are either drug dealers or drug users because of who you see them socializing with?

Or are you so Enlightened that you think "well, the one in the middle is a drug dealer but the other four are probably upstanding citizens, businessmen probably just hanging out with a friend who is a drug dealer."

As for the other part. No I don't know what he meant by that statement, and given that he's talking about has raised taxes for the rich to support the poor, I'm gonna stick with the socialist style politics. That's not saying he's a full on socialist,(also not saying he's not)because he hasn't done anything policy wise to that affect yet. But he is taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

I got your point. I pal around with terrorist, I am a terrorist is your point. You said you never called him any of those things but you darn sure implied it. And no, I don't automatically think when I see one guy passing drugs in a group that they all pass drugs. I think, they condone it, that the guy passing drugs is their freind, or its something to do, that despite their friend selling frugs they still want to talk to them and associate with them, not necessarily that they do it.

And since you don't get the spread the wealth comment, no other comment needs to be made. You're on that side and I am on this one, and never the twain shall meet.

Disheartning. and baseless

[Cleo's Mom 257]

We'll start with the first paragraph, because you still obviously are not getting what I'm saying. I did not say he is a terrorist, or a socialist, or a communist, BECAUSE of who he socializes with. I said that it is understandable that someone might think those things of him because of who he socializes with. That is the same point I made about you hanging around with certain types of people. I'm not saying that they influence you, I'm saying that they influence how people perceive you. If you either don't see that, or are denying it, you need to wake up. So let me ask you this point blank, yes or no; you see a group of guys standing on a corner, one is visibly selling drugs, do you, or do you not assume that they all are either drug dealers or drug users because of who you see them socializing with?

Or are you so Enlightened that you think "well, the one in the middle is a drug dealer but the other four are probably upstanding citizens, businessmen probably just hanging out with a friend who is a drug dealer."

So, when I see a teabagger harassing a guy with Parkinson's I can assume the other teabaggers around him are harassers, too, and not upstanding citizens? And when I see people surrounding a teabagger's sign saying Obama is a nazi, communist, nigger, etc.. I can assume that they are of a like mind and not upstanding citizens who just think the deficit is too high? I mean these teabaggers all hang around with each other, doesn't that mean we should assume they all think and act alike?

As for the other part. No I don't know what he meant by that statement, and given that he's talking about has raised taxes for the rich to support the poor, I'm gonna stick with the socialist style politics. That's not saying he's a full on socialist,(also not saying he's not)because he hasn't done anything policy wise to that affect yet. But he is taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

President Obama has not raised taxes. He has provided a tax cut for 95% of the wage earners. Additionally, when the bush tax cut for the rich runs out at the end of this year, then the rich will be back to paying their fare share that was reduced and for which we middle class had to make up with the two tax cuts for the rich under bush.

[ariscus99 1]

[]I got your point. I pal around with terrorist, I am a terrorist is your point. You said you never called him any of those things but you darn sure implied it. And no, I don't automatically think when I see one guy passing drugs in a group that they all pass drugs. I think, they condone it, that the guy passing drugs is their freind, or its something to do, that despite their friend selling frugs they still want to talk to them and associate with them, not necessarily that they do it.[/color]

And since you don't get the spread the wealth comment, no other comment needs to be made. You're on that side and I am on this one, and never the twain shall meet.

Disheartning. and baseless

For the daft; I did not say, nor imply that you ARE the same thing as the people that hang around you, or that you hang around. What I said, and what I mean, is that people judge you, like it or not, they do, right or wrong, thats life, I know I know, you and bj and cm don't but the rest of the world does. Does it make it true? No, does it make it understandable why someone would think a certain way about bo because of the people he chose to surround himself with, yes it does. Now the vast majority of people can make deductions about a person based on things we know and or learn about them, and decide, "okay maybe bo isn't a terrorist, but man he doesn't help his cause hanging out with that person." Now maybe bo doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or the people he hung out with, and thats great, but politics isn't the realm to be in if thats your outlook, because you get judged a lot.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Look when that top tax rate nosedived. When saint ronnie was elected.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[ariscus99 1]

President Obama has not raised taxes. He has provided a tax cut for 95% of the wage earners. Additionally, when the bush tax cut for the rich runs out at the end of this year, then the rich will be back to paying their fare share that was reduced and for which we middle class had to make up with the two tax cuts for the rich under bush.

This doesn't count?

Beginning in 2013, the new health care reform law will impose an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wage income for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000. This will be added to the existing 2.9 percent Medicare tax split between employees and employers. In addition, the new law imposes a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as rent, royalties, dividends and capital gains for the same high-income earners

[Cleo's Mom 257]

For the daft; I did not say, nor imply that you ARE the same thing as the people that hang around you, or that you hang around. What I said, and what I mean, is that people judge you, like it or not, they do, right or wrong, thats life, I know I know, you and bj and cm don't but the rest of the world does. Does it make it true? No, does it make it understandable why someone would think a certain way about bo because of the people he chose to surround himself with, yes it does. Now the vast majority of people can make deductions about a person based on things we know and or learn about them, and decide, "okay maybe bo isn't a terrorist, but man he doesn't help his cause hanging out with that person." Now maybe bo doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or the people he hung out with, and thats great, but politics isn't the realm to be in if thats your outlook, because you get judged a lot.

So, you can understand then how people can view the teabaggers as Obama hating racists. If you don't want that personal perception of you, then don't hang out with those like that. If you believe it applies to Pres. Obama, then it applies to the teabaggers.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This doesn't count?

They have been getting a free ride for too long. And this increase on payroll taxes will help the middle class, not just the poor. So to say the rich will pay more taxes to pay for the poor is not correct.

[ariscus99 1]

They have been getting a free ride for too long. And this increase on payroll taxes will help the middle class, not just the poor. So to say the rich will pay more taxes to pay for the poor is not correct.

For you to say bo has not raised taxes is incorrect, these taxes will help the poor, so to say the rich will pay more taxes to pay for the poor is not incorrect. And they hardly have had a free ride, the top 10 percent of earners pay over 68% of taxes.

Edited May 11, 2010 by ariscus99

[leroyspuds 0]

A real socialist's point of view on the subject, from the Washington Post:

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know.

By Billy Wharton - Sunday, March 15, 2009

It took a massive global financial crisis, a failed military adventure and a popular repudiation of the Republican Party to make my national television debut possible. After 15 years of socialist political organizing I found myself in the midtown Manhattan studio of the Fox Business Network on a cold February evening. Who ever thought that being the editor of the Socialist magazine, circulation 3,000, would launch me on a cable news career?

The media whirlwind began in October with a call from a New York Times writer. He wanted a tour of the Socialist Party USA's national office. Our media profile exploded. Even the Wall Street Journal wanted a socialist to quote after the first bailout bill failed last fall. Traffic to our Web site multiplied, e-mail inquiries increased and meetings with potential recruits to the Socialist Party yielded more new members than ever before. Socialism -- an idea with a long history -- suddenly seemed to have a bright future in 21st-century America.

Whom did we have to thank for this moment in the spotlight? Oddly enough, Republican politicians such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain had become our most effective promoters. During his campaign, the ever-desperate McCain, his hard-charging running mate Sarah Palin and even a plumber named Joe lined up to call Barack Obama a "socialist."

We appreciated the newfound attention. But we also cringed as the debate took on the hysterical tone of a farcical McCarthyism. The question "Is Obama a socialist?" spread rapidly through a network of rightwing blogs, conservative television outlets and alarmist radio talk shows and quickly moved into the mainstream. All this speculation over whether our current president is a socialist led me into the sea of business suits, BlackBerrys and self-promoters in the studio at Fox Business News. I quickly realized that the antagonistic anchor David Asman had little interest in exploring socialist ideas on bank nationalization. For Asman, nationalization was merely a code word for socialism. Using logic borrowed from the 1964 thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," he portrayed Obama as a secret socialist, so far undercover that not even he understood that his policies were de facto socialist. I was merely a cudgel to be wielded against the president -- a physical embodiment of guilt by association.

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.

Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.

Yet the president remains "the world's best salesman of socialism," according to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. DeMint encouraged supporters "to take to the streets to stop America's slide into socialism." Despite the fact that billions of dollars of public wealth are being transferred to private corporations, Huckabee still felt confident in proposing that "Lenin and Stalin would love" Obama's bank bailout plan.

Huckabee is clearly no socialist scholar, and I doubt that any of Obama's policies will someday appear in the annals of socialist history. The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society. So, President Obama, what I want to know is this: Can you lend legitimacy to a society in which 5 percent of the population controls 85 percent of the wealth? Can you sell a health-care reform package that will only end up enriching a private health insurance industry? Will you continue to favor military spending over infrastructure development and social services?

My guess is that the president will avoid these questions, further confirming that he is not a socialist except, perhaps, in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives. Yet as the unemployment lines grow longer, the food pantries emptier and health care scarcer, socialism may be poised for a comeback in America. The doors of our "socialist cubby-hole" are open to anyone, including Obama. I encourage him to stop by for one of our monthly membership meetings. Be sure to arrive early to get a seat -- we're more popular than ever lately.

[leroyspuds 0]

So I while I think your point is well taken, I disagree that the term "nigger" is on the same insult scale as some of the other slurs you listed. But then I don't use racial or intellectual slurs as a general rule. By the way, what's a pape? Did you mean pope?

BJean, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post. Certainly using racial slurs against our country's president is one of the most ignorant and hateful things an American could do. FYI, "pape" is a derrogatory word that used to be used to describe a Catholic. I believe it's derived from "papist."

[Cleo's Mom 257]

For you to say bo has not raised taxes is incorrect, these taxes will help the poor, so to say the rich will pay more taxes to pay for the poor is not incorrect. And they hardly have had a free ride, the top 10 percent of earners pay over 68% of taxes.

I didn't know the first dog was involved in taxes. But I digress. When Warren Buffet pays 17.7 % of his income in taxes and his secretary pays 30% of hers, in actual dollars he is contributing a lot more to the federal income taxes collected than she is, but it's taking a much bigger chunk of her earnings.

But since the rich are getting richer, and the middle class poorer, it only stands to reason that in actual dollars they are paying more in taxes but as you can see from my tax rate charts, their rate has been going down, down, down since saint ronnie. Additionally, they only pay 15% on capital gains which are a big part of their wealth.

[tdslf1 0]

Ari said,

For the daft; I did not say, nor imply that you ARE the same thing as the people that hang around you, or that you hang around. What I said, and what I mean, is that people judge you, like it or not, they do, right or wrong, thats life, I know I know, you and bj and cm don't but the rest of the world does. Does it make it true? No, does it make it understandable why someone would think a certain way about bo because of the people he chose to surround himself with, yes it does. Now the vast majority of people can make deductions about a person based on things we know and or learn about them, and decide, "okay maybe bo isn't a terrorist, but man he doesn't help his cause hanging out with that person." Now maybe bo doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or the people he hung out with, and thats great, but politics isn't the realm to be in if thats your outlook, because you get judged a lot.

No one is daft here. We got what you implied by throwing out the suppositions you did. You made sure those words were parsed. Some people, not you of course, would get the idea he was a socialist by the company he keeps. You would never have said it if you didn't have a belief or inkling that it could be true, otherwise why bring it up? And I say thank goodness, people did research, added some critical thinking skills and saw the BS being spewed by Faux Noise as just that, BS.

Great. You never said he was a terrorist, but you still never said he wasn't. I'm taking a stand, why don't you?