Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: y19mike77 on November 24, 2008, 08:10:15 AM
-
The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.
~ Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" (2008)
Are liberals clinically mad? This controversial question has been proposed and written about by many political pundits and conservative intellectuals, most notably, Dr. Michael Savage, a visionary radio talk show host from San Francisco, in his 2005 book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." However, Dr. Rossiter, brings a solid background as a psychiatrist and non-partisan, and years of clinical experience dealing with mental disorders of every conceivable type – making his findings singularly unique, objective and difficult to ignore.
For 25 years, I myself have studied and written about political liberalism, which traces its origins to the 16th and 17th century and the Age of Enlightenment; particularly the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Kant, Diderot, Jefferson and others.
Political liberalism continued to modern times in the politics and political writings of William James, Walter Lippmann, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, among others. I have also studied liberalism in all of its permutations and presuppositions, including democracy, natural law, natural rights, humanism, Marxism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, progressivism, pragmatism, moderates, neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, the welfare state, etc.
(Column continues below)
While neither Dr. Rossiter nor myself postulate that all liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
At Savannah State University, where I teach American government, international law and American judicial process, I am constantly waging intellectual warfare against my college students to forsake dependent, slavish ideologies rooted in emotivism, like liberalism, socialism, welfare statism and feminism, and instead to embrace critical thinking in all of their intellectual pursuits.
Recently during a mock presidential debate I had organized where I played Sen. John McCain (as if he were a true conservative), I even slammed my fist on the table and in the spirit of Justice Clarence Thomas' grandfather, who told young Clarence as a child, "The damn party's over!" I reacted to the SSU students openly praising FDR statism and the virtues of socialism or forcibly taking money from one group of people (producers) and giving it to another (non-producers). While the TV camera was rolling, I emphatically told the students at that debate to "Get off the damn plantation!"
The students, administration, faculty and staff were perhaps shocked at my characterization of the welfare state and its inimical effects on the black family, but I thought it had to be said so that we don't loose another generation of black students to failed, genocidal policies of the past.
Dr. Rossiter conveyed those same sentiments but in a much less emotive tone when he wrote: "Like spoiled, angry children, they [liberals] rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Whether you have a Ph.D. or a GED or fall somewhere in between, any government system or political philosophy based on taking trillions of taxpayer dollars and giving it to some lazy bum who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it in my opinion is sheer madness – as is any political organization like the Democratic Party that achieves and seizes power by seeing people not as the Constitution's framers saw people, as individuals ("We the People"), but uses them as a cynical means to an unholy end – using Machiavellian, Marxist and Alinsky tactics, divide people into warring factions: men against women, blacks against whites, Jews against Muslims, proper against the perverse, handicapped against able-bodied, workers against employers, straight against homosexuals, "the haves vs. the have nots."
It's all madness. Objectively speaking, liberalism is national genocide!
Let's apply Rossiter's theory that liberalism is a psychological disorder to today's politicians, Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, two unashamed, big-government socialists. Rossiter writes:
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
The key phrase is "human nature." There is a profound ignorance and loathing in the political philosophy of liberalism against human nature. Where it is discussed in polite company it is done so in context of casting maledictions, ridicule and contempt upon Christians, Christianity and their belief in the synthesis of legality and morality; an idea adopted by the framers of the Constitution and held as absolutely indispensable to the survival of America's republic.
To your average liberal intellectual or humanist academic, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's framers were the lowest, vilest, murderous hypocrites on the face of the earth and only deserve our utter condemnation. We see this displayed daily on the liberal media, in the judicial system, in the Democratic Party, in its leadership, its committees and the policies they champion, both domestic and foreign. Virtually every word uttered, printed or recorded by liberals is a dishonorable, unbroken litany of treason against America's laws, economics, culture, society and her most sacred values.
Rossiter said that liberalism is "based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions; modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded."
Using legal logic and deductive reasoning, if, as Dr. Rossiter brilliantly delineates, liberalism is a psychological disorder tantamount to political madness and America just elected Barack Obama, who according to the National Journal is the most liberal member of both houses of Congress, who ran on a socialist platform of resurrection of the welfare state of FDR, then what does that say about our American citizens who have elected these people to have Stalin-like control over every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave?
Can you say UAA, United Asylum of America?
-
Who's Rossiter? A gym teacher with an md from the University of Phoenix?
When you're done with this crap. Look up "projection."
-
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
The liberal Media, the liberal univerisities, and liberal Hollywood are keeping us real americans down.
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
We're Conservative Americans! We can attack any goddam country we want. International Law? Never heard of it.
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
Just look at the statistics, niggras are inferior. Same goes for spics. Same goes for Arabs. Except our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
Forget about PUrple heart bandages, flip flops, purple fingers, or turncoat McCain type Politicians.
You're either with us, or against us!
-
yle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area.
Dr. Rossiter is board certified in both general and forensic psychiatry. For more than forty years he has diagnosed and treated mental disorders, with a special interest in personality pathology and its developmental origins.
He has been retained by numerous public offices, courts and private attorneys as a forensic psychiatrist and has consulted in more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases in both state and federal jurisdictions. Dr. Rossiter has lectured to various groups on subjects ranging from psychotherapy to the prevention of suicide.
For more information about Dr. Rossiter's forensic psychiatry practice, visit
-
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
The liberal Media, the liberal univerisities, and liberal Hollywood are keeping us real americans down.
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
We're Conservative Americans! We can attack any goddam country we want. International Law? Never heard of it.
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
Just look at the statistics, niggras are inferior. Same goes for spics. Same goes for Arabs. Except our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
Forget about PUrple heart bandages, flip flops, purple fingers, or turncoat McCain type Politicians.
You're either with us, or against us!
I understand projection.
If the idea of projection is always correct then i can apply it to everything you have said about conservatives as well.
Its not a very good argument to try to make.
Projection is an unconscious effort to look for an outside cause rather than an internal one - it often results in blaming or fearing others in order to protect the self from recognizing unwanted impulses, usually of destructive nature. Using this mechanism helps us manage anxiety by mobilizing our aggression against internal threats we now perceive as external.
-
No, but conservatives are always idiots.
-
No, but conservatives are always idiots.
Lol hmmmmm is that projection?
-
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy; QUOTE; DECKER
Just look at the statistics, niggras are inferior. Same goes for spics. Same goes for Arabs. Except our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Seem like it's come to that, What happen to this great country? It's going to shit now.
You got kids looking up to Rappers, in my book that's not even talet just a bunch of negative bull shit. If my kid even tried to act like that i'd slap the shit out of him.
-
brutal attempt by y19mike77 to deflate his own self-doubt about the obvious conflict between his religious beliefs and those things his party said is right.
Thou shall not kill... unless you think one day a country *might* kill you.
Thou shalt not steal... unless taking their oil is only *part* of your reason for invading ;)
It's okay. Spend your time talking about how wrong liberals must be. It's way easier than trying to explain why you're right.
-
The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.
~ Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D., "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" (2008)
Are liberals clinically mad? This controversial question has been proposed and written about by many political pundits and conservative intellectuals, most notably, Dr. Michael Savage, a visionary radio talk show host from San Francisco, in his 2005 book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." However, Dr. Rossiter, brings a solid background as a psychiatrist and non-partisan, and years of clinical experience dealing with mental disorders of every conceivable type – making his findings singularly unique, objective and difficult to ignore.
For 25 years, I myself have studied and written about political liberalism, which traces its origins to the 16th and 17th century and the Age of Enlightenment; particularly the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Kant, Diderot, Jefferson and others.
Political liberalism continued to modern times in the politics and political writings of William James, Walter Lippmann, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, among others. I have also studied liberalism in all of its permutations and presuppositions, including democracy, natural law, natural rights, humanism, Marxism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, progressivism, pragmatism, moderates, neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, the welfare state, etc.
(Column continues below)
While neither Dr. Rossiter nor myself postulate that all liberals are ipso facto clinically mad, there are many characteristics of liberalism that are associated with the classic symptoms of madness, including:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
At Savannah State University, where I teach American government, international law and American judicial process, I am constantly waging intellectual warfare against my college students to forsake dependent, slavish ideologies rooted in emotivism, like liberalism, socialism, welfare statism and feminism, and instead to embrace critical thinking in all of their intellectual pursuits.
Recently during a mock presidential debate I had organized where I played Sen. John McCain (as if he were a true conservative), I even slammed my fist on the table and in the spirit of Justice Clarence Thomas' grandfather, who told young Clarence as a child, "The damn party's over!" I reacted to the SSU students openly praising FDR statism and the virtues of socialism or forcibly taking money from one group of people (producers) and giving it to another (non-producers). While the TV camera was rolling, I emphatically told the students at that debate to "Get off the damn plantation!"
The students, administration, faculty and staff were perhaps shocked at my characterization of the welfare state and its inimical effects on the black family, but I thought it had to be said so that we don't loose another generation of black students to failed, genocidal policies of the past.
Dr. Rossiter conveyed those same sentiments but in a much less emotive tone when he wrote: "Like spoiled, angry children, they [liberals] rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
Whether you have a Ph.D. or a GED or fall somewhere in between, any government system or political philosophy based on taking trillions of taxpayer dollars and giving it to some lazy bum who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it in my opinion is sheer madness – as is any political organization like the Democratic Party that achieves and seizes power by seeing people not as the Constitution's framers saw people, as individuals ("We the People"), but uses them as a cynical means to an unholy end – using Machiavellian, Marxist and Alinsky tactics, divide people into warring factions: men against women, blacks against whites, Jews against Muslims, proper against the perverse, handicapped against able-bodied, workers against employers, straight against homosexuals, "the haves vs. the have nots."
It's all madness. Objectively speaking, liberalism is national genocide!
Let's apply Rossiter's theory that liberalism is a psychological disorder to today's politicians, Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, two unashamed, big-government socialists. Rossiter writes:
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
The key phrase is "human nature." There is a profound ignorance and loathing in the political philosophy of liberalism against human nature. Where it is discussed in polite company it is done so in context of casting maledictions, ridicule and contempt upon Christians, Christianity and their belief in the synthesis of legality and morality; an idea adopted by the framers of the Constitution and held as absolutely indispensable to the survival of America's republic.
To your average liberal intellectual or humanist academic, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's framers were the lowest, vilest, murderous hypocrites on the face of the earth and only deserve our utter condemnation. We see this displayed daily on the liberal media, in the judicial system, in the Democratic Party, in its leadership, its committees and the policies they champion, both domestic and foreign. Virtually every word uttered, printed or recorded by liberals is a dishonorable, unbroken litany of treason against America's laws, economics, culture, society and her most sacred values.
Rossiter said that liberalism is "based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions; modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded."
Using legal logic and deductive reasoning, if, as Dr. Rossiter brilliantly delineates, liberalism is a psychological disorder tantamount to political madness and America just elected Barack Obama, who according to the National Journal is the most liberal member of both houses of Congress, who ran on a socialist platform of resurrection of the welfare state of FDR, then what does that say about our American citizens who have elected these people to have Stalin-like control over every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave?
Can you say UAA, United Asylum of America?
I'd say that's right on the money. Liberalism is a juvenile, immature way of thinking and behaving that is becoming more pervasive as time goes on.
Expect a lot of yelling and screaming and name-calling in this thread for pointing it out, however.
-
Haha.
This idiot is actually pairing Marxism with, get this, utilitarianism.
Oh brother.
-
brutal attempt by y19mike77 to deflate his own self-doubt about the obvious conflict between his religious beliefs and those things his party said is right.
Thou shall not kill... unless you think one day a country *might* kill you.
Thou shalt not steal... unless taking their oil is only *part* of your reason for invading ;)
It's okay. Spend your time talking about how wrong liberals must be. It's way easier than trying to explain why you're right.
Actually Churchill got it right when he said:
"If you are not liberal when you are 20, you have no heart, but, if you are not conservative by 40 y/o, you have no brain."
-
brutal attempt by y19mike77 to deflate his own self-doubt about the obvious conflict between his religious beliefs and those things his party said is right.
Thou shall not kill... unless you think one day a country *might* kill you.
Thou shalt not steal... unless taking their oil is only *part* of your reason for invading ;)
It's okay. Spend your time talking about how wrong liberals must be. It's way easier than trying to explain why you're right.
Look at you.. pathetic. I haven't been on getbig longer than most but not too long ago you identified yourself as conservative. I think the CT sites going to your brain have destroyed your rational thinking.
You were never a conservative or you would never have ended up like this. Very sad, 240.
-
I'd say that's right on the money. Liberalism is a juvenile, immature way of thinking and behaving that is becoming more pervasive as time goes on.
Expect a lot of yelling and screaming and name-calling in this thread for pointing it out, however.
I take it you are a Thatcherite?
There is no societal interest. We are only an amalgam of individuals in never ending competition.
What's more juvenille, the right wing perspective of the only thing that matters is my individual needs, what I produce is mine and to hell with everyone else or the left wing perspective that we have societal needs as well, you keep most of what you produce but kick a little back to those with less.
I think the answer is apparent: The selfish brat or the child who shares his toys with his siblings. Which child would you want?
-
I take it you are a Thatcherite?
There is no societal interest. We are only an amalgam of individuals in never ending competition.
What's more juvenille, the right wing perspective of the only thing that matters is my individual needs, what I produce is mine and to hell with everyone else or the left wing perspective that we have societal needs as well, you keep most of what you produce but kick a little back to those with less.
I think the answer is apparent: The selfish brat or the child who shares his toys with his siblings. Which child would you want?
If one child gets a toy because he made the effort to get A's and the C student wants to have the same thing than yeah I want a kid who knows the meaning of earning something. Those with "less" are like that for a reason.. the choices they've made.
But nothing is stopping you from giving what you have to someone with less. That's the point of freedom. No one has the right to make your decisions for you.
-
If one child gets a toy because he made the effort to get A's and the C student wants to have the same thing than yeah I want a kid who knows the meaning of earning something. Those with "less" are like that for a reason.. the choices they've made.
But nothing is stopping you from giving what you have to someone with less. That's the point of freedom. No one has the right to make your decisions for you.
Oh we have the grade parable.
All analogies breakdown. This one shatters right out of the gate. Are grades the same thing as tax dollars? No.
Progressive income taxation is a staple of America endorsed by Adam Smith.
Why progressive rates?
Because those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.
You don't ask your mother to move your barbells to the attic (unless you're Steve Martin) and you don't ask the poor and middle class to pay the same rate as the wealthy to maintain our american infrastructure and societal needs.
Freedom is not license. Freedom is for responsible people.
Selfishness is not a virtue. The sooner the selfish person realizes that he is part of a society which makes his prosperity even possible, the better off we all are.
-
brutal attempt by y19mike77 to deflate his own self-doubt about the obvious conflict between his religious beliefs and those things his party said is right.
Thou shall not kill... unless you think one day a country *might* kill you.
Thou shalt not steal... unless taking their oil is only *part* of your reason for invading ;)
It's okay. Spend your time talking about how wrong liberals must be. It's way easier than trying to explain why you're right.
240 owns again...hardcore. :D
-
I take it you are a Thatcherite?
There is no societal interest. We are only an amalgam of individuals in never ending competition.
What's more juvenille, the right wing perspective of the only thing that matters is my individual needs, what I produce is mine and to hell with everyone else or the left wing perspective that we have societal needs as well, you keep most of what you produce but kick a little back to those with less.
I think the answer is apparent: The selfish brat or the child who shares his toys with his siblings. Which child would you want?
Huh? Is that really how you see it? So the world divides neatly into two groups--the selfish brats and the kids who share? "I got mine and to hell with the rest of you" isn't at all what conservatism is about. If you've read any of my posts you would have seen that I believe strongly in the need for a strong society and that individual choices affect society as a whole. I also believe we're supposed to love our neighbor and help the needy and less fortunate. But I don't believe it's our government's place to dictate how and to whom that help should be doled out. Believing in personal responsibility and accountability and the power of the individual doesn't equate with selfishness, I don't know where you get that from.
-
Huh? Is that really how you see it? So the world divides neatly into two groups--the selfish brats and the kids who share? "I got mine and to hell with the rest of you" isn't at all what conservatism is about. If you've read any of my posts you would have seen that I believe strongly in the need for a strong society and that individual choices affect society as a whole. I also believe we're supposed to love our neighbor and help the needy and less fortunate. But I don't believe it's our government's place to dictate how and to whom that help should be doled out. Believing in personal responsibility and accountability and the power of the individual doesn't equate with selfishness, I don't know where you get that from.
That's a beautiful sentiment.
Private charity is not enough. It never has been.
Where do I get the 'greed is good' credo as it applies to conservatism? Hmmm, that's a tough one. How about here: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/04/26/greed_is_good
Or here: http://conservativeminded.blogspot.com/2007/02/greed-is-good.html
Or here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=69 The Virtue of Greed
Or here: http://www.rightcommentary.com/2008/04/19/greed-is-good-capitalism-baby/
Or here: http://www.greedisgood.org/
Everyone acts out of self interest but not everyone acts with informed predisposition to the value of society.
Pure self interest is easy. Ask a dog or bird.
The other way of thinking/being is not so easy.
-
Oh we have the grade parable.
All analogies breakdown. This one shatters right out of the gate. Are grades the same thing as tax dollars? No.
Progressive income taxation is a staple of America endorsed by Adam Smith.
Why progressive rates?
Because those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.
You don't ask your mother to move your barbells to the attic (unless you're Steve Martin) and you don't ask the poor and middle class to pay the same rate as the wealthy to maintain our american infrastructure and societal needs.
Freedom is not license. Freedom is for responsible people.
Selfishness is not a virtue. The sooner the selfish person realizes that he is part of a society which makes his prosperity even possible, the better off we all are.
Those with the strongest arms ARE DOING the heaviest lifting, moron. What percentage of the tax burden is paid by the top 20% top 5%? You can't keep hammering that mantra without limits or reasonable restraint. You are an admitted socialist scumbag so don't pretend to endorse Adam Smith when he stood against almost everything you do.
The founding fathers never intended for those who don't pay taxes to vote either. Should we tell everyone who makes under $40k they can't vote anymore? I think so.. those who don't earn don't have a right to tell those who do what to do with their money through legislation.
It's not selfish to look after your own best interests first instead of someone from the government doing it for you. So, yes, grades are the same as tax dollars when you learn that nothing is free and you get what you EARN.
-
That's a beautiful sentiment.
Private charity is not enough. It never has been.
Where do I get the 'greed is good' credo as it applies to conservatism? Hmmm, that's a tough one. How about here: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/04/26/greed_is_good
Or here: http://conservativeminded.blogspot.com/2007/02/greed-is-good.html
Or here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=69 The Virtue of Greed
Or here: http://www.rightcommentary.com/2008/04/19/greed-is-good-capitalism-baby/
Or here: http://www.greedisgood.org/
Everyone acts out of self interest but not everyone acts with informed predisposition to the value of society.
Pure self interest is easy. Ask a dog or bird.
The other way of thinking/being is not so easy.
Did you bother to read and/or watch any of those articles you cited, or did you just google "greed is good" and throw up some links? The kind of "greed" they are talking about is almost tongue-in-cheek, perhaps what you might refer to as rational self-interest that in turn serves the greater good. I especially liked that Milton Friedman interview on Donahue, and the way he basically pwned Phil--think about what he said and how true it is:
http://www.rightcommentary.com/2008/04/19/greed-is-good-capitalism-baby/
The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about--the only cases in recorded history--are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly the kinds of societies that depart from that--so that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
The whole rest of that interview is brilliant but I don't have the time to transcribe it all beyond the snippet up above, because it's certainly worth repeating here. But it's the gospel truth--that man was a genius. Nobody in their right mind could argue with him, history speaks for itself.
-
Those with the strongest arms ARE DOING the heaviest lifting, moron. What percentage of the tax burden is paid by the top 20% top 5%? You can't keep hammering that mantra without limits or reasonable restraint. You are an admitted socialist scumbag so don't pretend to endorse Adam Smith when he stood against almost everything you do.
The founding fathers never intended for those who don't pay taxes to vote either. Should we tell everyone who makes under $40k they can't vote anymore? I think so.. those who don't earn don't have a right to tell those who do what to do with their money through legislation.
It's not selfish to look after your own best interests first instead of someone from the government doing it for you. So, yes, grades are the same as tax dollars when you learn that nothing is free and you get what you EARN.
Why oh why do you insist on parading your vast and comprehensive ignorance on these boards? Are you a masochist?
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations
Do you see where you made your mistake?
The rich don't pay nearly enough in taxes. You conveniently look at the income tax. It's graded and the rich pay more b/c they earn more. The Soc Sec tax is flat. Only the medicare portion is not capped at the soc. sec. wage base. I never hear you right wingers talk about that though.
The rich use more governmental resources than the poor so they should pay more taxes relative to their amount of income.
Thank god we don't have elitests like yourself running the gov. Excluding middle and lower class people from voting isn't exactly the flower of democracy, is it?
I understand why you say these things. Your little black heart is fascist. You can admit that. You're a fascist elitest. The founding fathers were not deities. Many were pieces of shit. Many were highly educated. All of them are distorted and exploited by rightwing fanatics such as yourself.
-
Did you bother to read and/or watch any of those articles you cited, or did you just google "greed is good" and throw up some links? The kind of "greed" they are talking about is almost tongue-in-cheek, perhaps what you might refer to as rational self-interest that in turn serves the greater good. I especially liked that Milton Friedman interview on Donahue, and the way he basically pwned Phil--think about what he said and how true it is:
http://www.rightcommentary.com/2008/04/19/greed-is-good-capitalism-baby/
The whole rest of that interview is brilliant but I don't have the time to transcribe it all beyond the snippet up above, because it's certainly worth repeating here. But it's the gospel truth--that man was a genius. Nobody in their right mind could argue with him, history speaks for itself.
I always read the works of my enemies. Ah yes, the rational utility maximizer. That sort of greed is as funny as the greed is good crowd...
Freedman was a putz. He was wrong about corporations and the free market. Thanks to douchebags like him, we have race to the bottom for the american worker. The relentless pursuit of profit is an empty pursuit and he is the champion of that way of thinking.
-
I always read the works of my enemies. Ah yes, the rational utility maximizer. That sort of greed is as funny as the greed is good crowd...
Freedman was a putz. He was wrong about corporations and the free market. Thanks to douchebags like him, we have race to the bottom for the american worker. The relentless pursuit of profit is an empty pursuit and he is the champion of that way of thinking.
I don't see how you can call Friedman a "putz" and say he was wrong when the proof that he was RIGHT is literally all around you. It's not perfect but it's the best there is. Show me an economy anywhere else in the world that has worked better based on the principles you seem to be espousing. Maybe it's a nice idea in theory but show me where it's worked and made this "worker" of which you speak, affluent and prosperous and successful.
You can hate that Friedman's right and wish it were different in your world and resent him and call him all sorts of names like "putz" and "douchebag" but it doesn't change how it is. I knew this thread would eventually degenerate into name-calling, thanks for proving me right. :)
-
I don't see how you can call Friedman a "putz" and say he was wrong when the proof that he was RIGHT is literally all around you. It's not perfect but it's the best there is. Show me an economy anywhere else in the world that has worked better based on the principles you seem to be espousing. Maybe it's a nice idea in theory but show me where it's worked and made this "worker" of which you speak, affluent and prosperous and successful.
You can hate that Friedman's right and wish it were different in your world and resent him and call him all sorts of names like "putz" and "douchebag" but it doesn't change how it is. I knew this thread would eventually degenerate into name-calling, thanks for proving me right. :)
As bad as it may seem here right now, I never see the "workers' paradise" that so often embodies what these liberals want us to become.
It has never worked anywhere in the past and will never work anywhere it is ever tried.
Socialism and communism NEVER work because they are based on the desire to control peoples' behavior rather than sound economic olicy, logic, and historic realities.
Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea, et al are all examples of Marxist states gone bad.
They argue - "communism as envisioned by Marx has never really been tried."
Of course it has, it SUCKS and spawns pure EVIL!
-
This shit wouldn't fly in any other first world country.
-
Why oh why do you insist on parading your vast and comprehensive ignorance on these boards? Are you a masochist?
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations
Do you see where you made your mistake?
The rich don't pay nearly enough in taxes. You conveniently look at the income tax. It's graded and the rich pay more b/c they earn more. The Soc Sec tax is flat. Only the medicare portion is not capped at the soc. sec. wage base. I never hear you right wingers talk about that though.
The rich use more governmental resources than the poor so they should pay more taxes relative to their amount of income.
Thank god we don't have elitests like yourself running the gov. Excluding middle and lower class people from voting isn't exactly the flower of democracy, is it?
I understand why you say these things. Your little black heart is fascist. You can admit that. You're a fascist elitest. The founding fathers were not deities. Many were pieces of shit. Many were highly educated. All of them are distorted and exploited by rightwing fanatics such as yourself.
Good job...
Because poverty of the 18th century colonies is SSSOOOOOO much like the poverty of the early 21st century USA. You are a dunce.
The constitution being an obvious backbone of conservatism doesn't require any exploitation. And believing in it and defending it hardly makes me a fascist. Let's aim a little higher next time, ok little guy?!? ;D
-
Hey Decker, you suppose that cherity was never enough because it's always been the conservatives are the ones that give the majority of the time? You ACTUALLY think socialism is better huh?
-
.....How come dems/Libs don't "spread the wealth" through cherity? There's a cherity for everything, pick one and donate!
-
You ACTUALLY think socialism is better huh?
Bush just gave 7.4 trillion bucks to corporate America, according to bloomberg.
I don't think EITHER party can stand on their high horse and tease the other about socialism anymore :(
-
Bush didn't give 7.76 trillion. That's what being proposed by the Government. WTF are you talking about Rob? I read the artical just like you!
-
Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea, et al are all examples of Marxist states gone bad.
Yeah, their economy is really in the shitter.
-
Yeah, their economy is really in the shitter.
China is in the toilet, dont buy the propoganda. americans cutting back on crap from china is killing them right now.
-
China is in the toilet, dont buy the propoganda. americans cutting back on crap from china is killing them right now.
OK.
-
I don't see how you can call Friedman a "putz" and say he was wrong when the proof that he was RIGHT is literally all around you. It's not perfect but it's the best there is. Show me an economy anywhere else in the world that has worked better based on the principles you seem to be espousing. Maybe it's a nice idea in theory but show me where it's worked and made this "worker" of which you speak, affluent and prosperous and successful.
You can hate that Friedman's right and wish it were different in your world and resent him and call him all sorts of names like "putz" and "douchebag" but it doesn't change how it is. I knew this thread would eventually degenerate into name-calling, thanks for proving me right. :)
He's a douchebag b/c he wants it all for corporations. He wants corporate personhood with the attendant constitutional rights into infinity but he never heard of social responsibility in that context b/c according to him, the only responsibility a corporation has is to maximize profits. He wants all the benefits without the burdens. Monetarism was tried in Britain and the US in the late 70s and early 80s and failed miserably. He's a tap dancing corporate apologist. He's everything I despise in an economist.
Other than that, he's great.
-
Good job...
Because poverty of the 18th century colonies is SSSOOOOOO much like the poverty of the early 21st century USA. You are a dunce.
The constitution being an obvious backbone of conservatism doesn't require any exploitation. And believing in it and defending it hardly makes me a fascist. Let's aim a little higher next time, ok little guy?!? ;D
You're the one who doesn't know shit about Adam Smith and you call me a dunce? OH the humanity and the projection.
Why must you show your stupidity time and again for all to see?
A normal person would have crawled away while the wake of your ignorance subsided. But not you. You are a masochist.
-
Hey Decker, you suppose that cherity was never enough because it's always been the conservatives are the ones that give the majority of the time? You ACTUALLY think socialism is better huh?
Charity is never enough. Conservatives only give more than liberals if you count the money rightwingers give to their favorite witch doctors and/or shamans.
I don't count donations/tithing to voodoo as true charity. You can, if it makes you feel better.
The US already has Socialized Capitalism. Didn't anyone tell you?
-
China is in the toilet, dont buy the propoganda. americans cutting back on crap from china is killing them right now.
theyre the biggest holder of US foreign debt.
we own them, as they hurt so much if the dollar fails. But they own us too.
-
.....How come dems/Libs don't "spread the wealth" through cherity? There's a cherity for everything, pick one and donate!
What is this "cherity" you continue to speak of?
As for as CHARITY goes, I think I will donate to the Leave No Child Behind. Maybe they will get you enrolled in grade school again.
-
Why oh why do you insist on parading your vast and comprehensive ignorance on these boards? Are you a masochist?
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations
Do you see where you made your mistake?
The rich don't pay nearly enough in taxes. You conveniently look at the income tax. It's graded and the rich pay more b/c they earn more. The Soc Sec tax is flat. Only the medicare portion is not capped at the soc. sec. wage base. I never hear you right wingers talk about that though.
The rich use more governmental resources than the poor so they should pay more taxes relative to their amount of income.
Thank god we don't have elitests like yourself running the gov. Excluding middle and lower class people from voting isn't exactly the flower of democracy, is it?
I understand why you say these things. Your little black heart is fascist. You can admit that. You're a fascist elitest. The founding fathers were not deities. Many were pieces of shit. Many were highly educated. All of them are distorted and exploited by rightwing fanatics such as yourself.
fact. 40% of US tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of tax returns. most of the rest is paid by the upper middle, middle class joes like you and me. the uber rich pay the overwhelming majority of our income taxes. we pay the rest.
-
fact. 40% of US tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of tax returns. most of the rest is paid by the upper middle, middle class joes like you and me. the uber rich pay the overwhelming majority of our income taxes. we pay the rest.
Income taxes. What about all the other taxes?
The top marginal rate in the 50s was 91% and that decade was considered a high point in our history for standard of living.
-
Income taxes. What about all the other taxes?
The top marginal rate in the 50s was 91% and that decade was considered a high point in our history for standard of living.
No one paid that amount and it was full of loopholes just like the current system is.
The middle class is hammered to DEATH, not in income taxes, but FICA taxes, energy taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, communication taxes, fees, costs, tickets and other taxes.
The average person pays at least 50% tax on every dollar by my estimation when all of the above are taken into account. Its theft by any other name and the founding fathers, who were far smarter and enlightened than we are, started a revolution over such acts.
-
Income taxes. What about all the other taxes?
The top marginal rate in the 50s was 91% and that decade was considered a high point in our history for standard of living.
.
which other taxes do you wanna increase? i would think them paying 40% of all our federal tax revenue is a pretty good contribution. what about the guys like me and you workin our balls off for 100k-250k? thats who pays the rest. the poor are not burdened with any significant share of our tax revenue. in fact with the refundable tax credits we pay a lot of them to stay poor.
-
.
which other taxes do you wanna increase? i would think them paying 40% of all our federal tax revenue is a pretty good contribution. what about the guys like me and you workin our balls off for 100k-250k? thats who pays the rest. the poor are not burdened with any significant share of our tax revenue. in fact with the refundable tax credits we pay a lot of them to stay poor.
3333...is right. All tax rates are nominal. The actual rates can be zero.
-
.
which other taxes do you wanna increase? i would think them paying 40% of all our federal tax revenue is a pretty good contribution. what about the guys like me and you workin our balls off for 100k-250k? thats who pays the rest. the poor are not burdened with any significant share of our tax revenue. in fact with the refundable tax credits we pay a lot of them to stay poor.
Like I said, we are saturated with too many taxes as it is.
I live in Westchester County, NY. We have the honor of being the highest taxed county in the nation. Its unreal and only the uber rich and poor benefit from this chaos.
This is just how liberals want it. They want enough poor people dependent on welfare and them for votes, and enough rich people to pay for it.
Damn everyone else.
-
3333...is right. All tax rates are nominal. The actual rates can be zero.
still doesnt change the fact that the rich, with regards to tax revenue, pay their fair share and then some and that the poor are not being overly burdened with taxes.
-
still doesnt change the fact that the rich, with regards to tax revenue, pay their fair share and then some and that the poor are not being overly burdened with taxes.
The middle class are way overburdened with taxes. Not income taxes, but others.
I will say this, I live in Westchester County, and the richest get their monies worth from the property taxes they pay depending on where they live. For example, Bronxville, Scarsdale, Chappaqua, Edgement, Rye, Purchase, all pay crazy property taxes, but the schools are excellent.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!
Middle class people in Westchester who live in Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, Port Chester, who also pay VERY HIGH taxes, have terrible schools.
As far as income taxes go, yes the rich pay the most. However, you cant raises taxes on middle class people because they are already paying extremely high taxes as a portion of their income, just not income taxes.
-
The middle class are way overburdened with taxes. Not income taxes, but others.
I will say this, I live in Westchester County, and the richest get their monies worth from the property taxes they pay depending on where they live. For example, Bronxville, Scarsdale, Chappaqua, Edgement, Rye, Purchase, all pay crazy property taxes, but the schools are excellent.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!
Middle class people in Westchester who live in Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, Port Chester, who also pay VERY HIGH taxes, have terrible schools.
As far as income taxes go, yes the rich pay the most. However, you cant raises taxes on middle class people because they are already paying extremely high taxes as a portion of their income, just not income taxes.
agreed.
-
agreed.
I think the founders of this nation, especially Jefferson, would have had and advocated many numerous boston tea parties by now. and perhaps more.
Its really disgraceful what he have become as far as taxation goes.
-
Bush just gave 7.4 trillion bucks to corporate America, according to bloomberg.
I don't think EITHER party can stand on their high horse and tease the other about socialism anymore :(
A-fucking-MEN
-
A-fucking-MEN
George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. His first term was pretty good. However, his second term has been a disaster.
-
George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. His first term was pretty good. However, his second term has been a disaster.
And he deserves it.
He's a statist and the damage he's inflicted will take decades to repair.
The pussies in the GOP are no better and are an embarrassment to true conservatives. I'm happy they got their asses kicked on November 4th. Time to rebuild the party and go back to core conservative values.
-
And he deserves it.
He's a statist and the damage he's inflicted will take decades to repair.
The pussies in the GOP are no better and are an embarrassment to true conservatives. I'm happy they got their asses kicked on November 4th. Time to rebuild the party and go back to core conservative values.
Seriously. For example--it just seemed to me that McCain was trying to beat Obama at his own game. Like he was trying to be "Obama Lite" to maybe buy a few votes, and obviously it backfired on him big time.
-
You're the one who doesn't know shit about Adam Smith and you call me a dunce? OH the humanity and the projection.
Why must you show your stupidity time and again for all to see?
A normal person would have crawled away while the wake of your ignorance subsided. But not you. You are a masochist.
Is that what you're going to say EVERY time I make you look stupid? Why don't you try answering those questions now. ;D
-
Is that what you're going to say EVERY time I make you look stupid? Why don't you try answering those questions now. ;D
You were wrong about Adam Smith and his endorsement of progressive taxation. Admit it.
In your world, does your being wrong make me look stupid? You have much to learn. But that's why I'm here.
Now what's this crapola about questions you might have?
-
You were wrong about Adam Smith and his endorsement of progressive taxation. Admit it.
In your world, does your being wrong make me look stupid? You have much to learn. But that's why I'm here.
Now what's this crapola about questions you might have?
Progressive taxation with RESTRAINT. We already have it but anti-constitutional, success-loathing nitwits like yourself don't know what that means.
Oh, and..
Answer me honestly.. How many of those 100,000 took up arms against allied forces? And how many of those that didn't take up arms against us were shot, stabbed, or obliterated by allied forces? Please answer this.
-
George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. His first term was pretty good. However, his second term has been a disaster.
Damn - my Bush kneepadding was real bad back then.