What happens when you scrap the welfare state

I liked the part where the guy with the gun and angry snake in his sig pic called me a violence sympathizer.

Why do you want people to come and take your gun? So that you can be non-violent towards them?

 

Easy, brother--you're driving him over the edge!!

 

I have no obligation to be polite. None of you are nice or polite to me.

And besides, I mean what I say; I am sick of bandwagon Liberals who expect everything given to them "free." They're closed-minded (but say their Open minded) and actively oppose freedom (which they deny.)

But it is true, and this reaction should just prove it. Try to question a Liberals views, you wont get any answers, but they'll get angry, throw a fit and, ignore the truth! If they cant FORCE their views onto you.

I dare any Liberal out there to respond.. ANY... And I've said this before, (a few times,) and got NOTHING.

So, it's painfully obvious that Liberals are a part of the status quo, and have no logical thinking behind their jargon. They just think the sky will fall if we cut spending!

They see government as the "good guy" and corporations as bad. Even if the government offers companies immunity, and creates government monopolies against the interest of the people.

 

Yes, I see your point.

I am sorry that I wasn't more polite to you. I guess logic just isn't my strong suit. I need to learn how to be more independent-minded and open my mind so that I can agree with everything you are saying. Honestly, you are right... I can't answer you because you are too right about everything, so I have to resort to bullshit answers from the media and graphs from government-owned sources that aren't BBC or RT. And I'm not even questioning them like you are... I don't know why I feel like I need to post lies all the time to prove my point-- I guess it's just because there are so many lies out there that it's too easy to find them!

I think I'm going to go out and buy a gun tomorrow, because if things are as bad as you say, I need to be prepared to kill all the people who support violence. I think to get myself in the right frame of mind I'm going to watch more Fox News so that I can get a good sense of what's going on.

 

If someone comes into my home, it isn't me initiating the force, is it?

Besides, it is my 2nd Amendment to bear arms, and the government (as I said) is not over my Human Rights.

And yes, I called you a violence sympathizer- cause you are one. You support taking away citizens guns, (a majority of who, doesn't use them for bad,) yet, you think it's fine for government to have guns. But, cops kill unarmed people all the time, and so do troops. Obama kills people (which you don't oppose,) but you oppose my right to protect myself? That's the hypocrisy and violence Im talking about.

Obama bombed libya, and he actively goes against our Human Rights. Supporting him, IS supporting violence. Liberal love to say they don't support violence, but in the end, your policies do nothing to stop the wide-spread initiation of force, pushed by the US government. And in fact, only gives them more power.

 

Oh, but I do have sympathy for the victims of Islamic extremism. I'm an atheist! I'm glad my tax dollars are used to build drones.

Now. Again, I say, that bad things happened in Guatemala, and at times Uncle Sam helped bad guys. My points are:

The "left" focuses on external affairs, foreign affairs, at the expense of domestic affairs. Because the left's agenda is not made by working people, but by academics and the children of the upper classes.

Secondly, whatever the USA struggles against, be it Communism (left wing fascism) or terrorism, the loony left JUMPS at the opportunity to yell that it's a phony crusade. They do this because they start from a position of disdain for the USA, and because they are oblivious to the fact that Joe and Jane Public really do fear Communism and terrorism, and justifiably so. The loony left is oblivious to the fact that this makes it easy for the right to point and say, "They're with the bad guys!", or "They're soft on the bad guys.")

I suspect that in classes where business marketing is taught, leftist politics is used as the ultimate counter example to good marketing.

 

The USA rarely initiates violence. Sure, the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" was a fabrication, but Red China was supporting Vietnam's North. Sure, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but Sadaam had invaded Kuwait years earlier, and dumped nerve gas on Kurds. WHO initiated WHAT is lost in such a ton of details, it's impossible to unravel.

 

I wonder if you could say that in a real conversation with a straight face.

 

Evidently not..

I know I'm right. Anyway, that's not the only news that I watch, and I told you that. I even watch CNN, and media with a more Liberal bias. In fact, Abby Martin of RT is totally Liberal. Maybe if you looked into economics, and didn't just demand more taxes for a country you don't even live in! Taxes are too high already, and the problem with our society isn't homeless people dying, it isn't not giving out enough benefits; It's giving out too many benefits and spreading the middle class too thin. The middle class is shrinking rapidly, and it is because of the Liberal spending of the past 30 years.

Like I said, you're opposed to citizens protecting themselves, but you don't even care when I show you how American cops are involved in murder, rape and, running prostitution rings! You give government a pass to do such morally unacceptable and, disgusting abuses of power for the alleged "greater good"

I say alleged because America is no longer free, it is no longer prosperous and, we can no longer keep the fruits of our labor. You don't understand the founding document of this country, I honestly don't even take you seriously.

You want people to give up their only freedoms for more taxes and bigger more invasive government system. This runs contrary to everything America was founded on.

This is not a LEft or Right issue, but a Human Rights issue. This is why the two party system is a joke! No matter who we voted for, we got more taxes, forced healthcare, more conflicts and, more empty promises. You're just one of the typical Obama supporters who ignore all his wrong doings, and supports him merely for saying he supports gay marriage, or raising taxes on the rich. Has he done it? No! he's a total Wallstreet puppet, he's not "reforming" anything, that is just more rhetoric to get peoples votes.

I guess it's easy to support a president, when you don't actually look into their policies...

 

Eleven

Why are you ‘glad’?

What has atheism got to do with it?

AND AGAIN – what is your definition of the ‘left’?

And a huge amount has been written on the domestic mistakes of US administrations so it would seem that your comment hold absolutely no water.

AND AGAIN – AGAIN – what is your definition of working class and upper class?

AND AGAIN - AGAIN – AGAIN - what is your definition of the ‘left’ and is there a difference between that left and the ‘loony left?

 

Eleven

To repeat something I said earlier about the cold war against ‘communism’ -

A lot of the problems with the US and in the world today go back to mistakes successive US governments made in the so called ‘cold war’. I’m going to have to generalise here and it doesn’t cover everything but…

It brought about a situation where any left wing thought became associated with hard-line communism.

In the world

Often reforming left leaning leaders were overthrown because they were seen as ‘communist’ and anyone however brutal could get US support by claiming to be ‘ant-communist’.

For example involvement in many Caribbean and Latin American states has brought about poverty dictatorial rule and war. (Red Heat: Conspiracy, Murder and the Cold War in the Caribbean by Alex von Tunzelmann). And involvement in the overthrow of the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and the imposing of the brutal Shah’s rule sewed the seed for the Iran of today. (All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer)

And in Vietnam backing the French colonists rather backing Vietnamese Independence lead to the war in the region.

Later involvement in Afghanistan to well need I go on…

In the US

The red scare of the 40-50’s basically purged the US of mainstream left wing thought (McCarthyism, Un-American committee) so in US politics there was no real pull from the left, which I think has badly affected the US political system.

The US became a militarized society, with vast sums going to what became the military-industrial complex (that morphed into crony capitalism).
Anyway I could and I have gone on about these things in many threads.

 

Eleven

Please back this up because a lot of it seems like managed hysteria that was used by established powers to purge US society of left wing thought.

To go into a little more detail i'll repeat something i've posted before where I argue that the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power and that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it because they had been manipulated into thinking at way.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty mayors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**
What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

 

Sorry again that doesn’t seem to be substantiated by history you just need to look at US involvements in Latin America (1) to see that as well as such imperial conflicts like that in the Philippines.

(1) http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

 

Wow, I agree.

 

We're realizing at last we are not a free world in the presence of developed a cold war. I suppose I should give a reference, but that makes the comment relative; and it is not. Some reference should be found for historical purposes to show that globalization had an altruist motivation, it consequentially collapsed and responded towards the greed and interest of maintaining classes and relations throughout the Earth of basically an oligarchical control on the monetary determination of concepts of regard. That is absolute that global development is denying enlightenment to Knowledge and the science of Knowledge.

Instead it is the economic indicators which have the relative sole purpose of promoting the facts of distribution for ordinary people through centralized Needs. <ah, shucks; I have to give up upon the novel computer culture>

 

Actually, what you're doing is taking two totally unrelated things and mashing them into a big ball of shit.

First of all, do you notice that taxes increased in times of war and government projects?

Think about it; by naming the last 9 presidents (roughly 40 years,) is pointless considering, that I don't support the policies of the last 40 years. This is all Liberal spending- the idea that government should be massive and all-knowing is the Liberal agenda. And alot of the stuff we pay into such as, Social Security, foodstamps and, medicade, do not help everyone, and actually hurt competition and raise prices.

People have put up with crazy stuff in America- the confiscation of gold, the decline in individual freedom and occasionally, insane taxes. And people paid it cause they trusted government would do something good with it..


But do they? No! Most of our money is wasted.


And btw. Sneaky you acting like that's our only taxes. Not only do we have sales tax, (for the state I believe) but there are more hidden taxes, on everyday items.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2008/03/11/hidden-taxes-eight-you-are-paying-every-day/



Liberalism, unfortunately, feeds into the status quo, because it doesn't do anything to stop the problem. Economically, it just goes along with what we have been doing, but demands MORE failure government programs and expenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw"]CNBC: Ron Paul's question makes Ben Bernake's voice quiver - YouTube

 

You said that taxes were too high, I pointed out that they have been higher in the past. Those times were also the most prosperous times the majority of US citizens have ever seen and actually created the middle class 'American Dream' type of living in the first place, but I'm sure that taxes had nothing to do with that.

Except for Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Vietnam didn't bring taxes back to WWII levels.

But even if what you were saying IS true, which it isn't, what are you getting at? That the government doesn't want you to know that it pays for things with taxes?

If you want to drop out of society, then do it. And you have absolutely no proof that any of those programs hurt anyone except big business, which I understand you hate.

Yeah, you keep saying this. You haven't actually backed any of it up, though.

^Please explain the connection you're apparently drawing between interest rates, inflation and taxes.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

25

And in the main nor do I but I’ve given my reasons and explained them often at length and in detail. But because you don’t seem able to explain your thinking I’m still not what it is, that is beyond bitching and moaning.

You seem to want to give more power and influence to wealth through tax cuts and deregulation and increase it ability to exploit through the dismantling of welfare but we already know you’re incapable of addressing the criticisms of those ideas.

As I’ve told you before just claiming you are right doesn’t make your arguments valid especially when all the unanswered criticism seems to indicate that they are not.