Sorry, I guess it’s just a spam filter thing. It took the post down, I suppose.

Deleting my last post pretty without offering any response pretty conclusively shows that I was right, and you want to censor it because you really CAN’T argue it or defend your ridiculous positions.

Well, I guess this settles it. You are unable to answer for your own absurd beliefs grounded in pure ideological fantasy. Whenever someone confronts you on them, you obfuscate the argument and deflect discussion to your only pet issue; taxes.

It becomes increasingly evident that the reason you argue against socialism is not because of any kind of social injustices or potential abuse of the system. It is because of your utter hatred for taxation, and assume that under a socialist system you would pay more taxes.

It becomes increasingly evident that you are unable or unwilling to criticize anyone without resorting to calling them a socialist, as though that undercuts all their arguments, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT A SOCIALIST. You simplify and generalize and label and libel in order to categorise your opponents as socialists, nay, COMMUNISTS [COMMUNIIIIIIIIIISTS!!!!!!!!!!!! The eternal foe of America!!!!] and attempt to discredit them entirely through rhetoric, entirely WITHOUT engaging their arguments and rebuttals.

It becomes increasingly evident that all of your anti-Democrat [sorry, anti COMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIE] rhetoric and all of your so-called conservative ideology revolves around the one and only argument you ever maintain: “I shouldn’t have to pay taxes!” It’s all a smokescreen for your utter disregard for anyone other than yourself; anyone who isn’t successful now is obviously a SOCIALIST COMMIE-NAZI MOOCH who wants to DESTROY AMERICA by BANKRUPTING ME THROUGH MY TAXES!!!! If only ALL of America could be middle class whitebread, then they wouldn’t need to be such lazy commie slobs sucking at my teat!

You turn everything, every argument, SOMEHOW, into an argument about taxes, and how taxes [NATIONAL SOCIALISM] will discourage anyone from succeeding and magically America will collapse overnight from total demoralization.

There IS no content to your rhetoric. There IS no philosophy to your politics. There is only anti-empathy, anti-intellectualism.

Answer the ruddy questions already.

Norway, Germany, the UK, Japan, Australia and Canada…

Crumb,

We don’t want to be like these countries. We don’t want rationed health care. We don’t want even higher tax rates and government mandates on our freedom to work. We are the most productive, powerful, and innovative country in the world; and we attract the most capital.

This is why Europe wants us to be like them so they can continue their socialistic policies and do so without competition for capital which leaves for the US.

The combined population of the countries you mention is about 330 million with a combined GDP of 11 trillion.

The US has a population of only 300 million and a GDP over 13 trillion. GDP is purchasing power and directly translates into standard of living.

The only thing we can accomplish by emulating government inferior to ours is to become inferior.

The Market actually encourages the Prison-Industrial complex, which, I have read today, correlates with an INCREASE in crime in Michigan, possibly caused by families forever broken by minimum life sentences. What is profitable for the market is not good for the people in this case, among others.

Jim,

“You got one thing right, I can’t understand how, with all the empirical evidence any bright person can’t see that capitalism leads to prosperity and socialism to ruin.”

No one (here) says a capitalist system leads to ruin. However, the market is not perfect in every respect. Yes, it is more efficient and yes it leads to the generation of greater wealth. No one is arguing that we should nationalise the commanding heights of industry here (at least I’m not) - you’re stuck in a cold war time warp, Jim.

But the merket is not the magic solution to everything. It does not provide everyone with a decent education, basic healthcare, or law and order by definition.

Here’s my earlier post that wasn’t added for some reason.

That’s very nice, but it once again sidesteps my questions.

Besides which, your historical illiteracy shows again, as Quebec was sort of independent before the British went and conquered it. You really don’t know the first thing about the issue so I would suggest to you that you not bother discussing it lest you further embarrass your position. Not that the Quebec sovereignty issue has ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RECENT MULTICULTURALISM POLICY, WHICH IS EMBRACED BY QUEBEC.

You demonstrate clearly your religious fanaticism regarding capitalism. You connect bankruptcy, moral bankruptcy and “fractured culture” with the decline of the Free Market. Evidently the Free Market is the great defender of morality and wealth and identity!

You continue to completely misunderstand socialism based around Cold War attitudes. Most of the developed world is socialist to some degree or another. Norway, Germany, the UK, Japan, Australia and Canada to name a few, have developed welfare states and socialist attitudes on many issues. And yet!! They are not the ones enduing what may become an economic collapse.

Your solution to “fractured identity” is what exactly? Oppression? Forced assimilation? Genocide? Canada, Australia and the US tried all of these methods before; disenfranchising natives, forcing them into residential schools, employing EUGENICS programs against them, exterminating them with war and disease. If you don’t go in for one of the traditional methods of forced assimilation and democide, then perhaps you have some brilliant, novel solution to the “problem” of diversity? Oh, yes, you do. The Free Market [???].

Have you ever heard of a Mixed economy before? There IS a medium between totalitarian command and libertarian market economies, and many socialist countries [successfully!] employ the methods of a Mixed economy! Here’s a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Modern_U.S._economy
No wonder America is turning into an economic ruin! It employs such EVIL SOCIALIST POLICIES as BANNING UNSAFE DRUGS and holding A MONOPOLY ON POLICING!!

You make the same fatal mistakes as Raul and Mike. You peg others into ideological molds and then ignore everything they say in order to spew typical, unthinking rhetoric; you make arguments based on things you know nothing about; you generalize and demonise anything that you disagree with; and you dodge criticism of your absurd claims. Answer them.

Crumb,

You got one thing right, I can’t understand how, with all the empirical evidence any bright person can’t see that capitalism leads to prosperity and socialism to ruin.

As the United States has moved away from free market self reliant policies we have also moved toward bankruptcy, toward immorality, and toward a fractured culture.

Canada shows us what a fractured culture looks like, your friends in Quebec have repeatedly endeavored to independence and it is precisely because of Canada’s tolerance for a different language and culture which has caused this divide.

You may disagree with my views, but you can never encourage me to adopt those that elevate power of government above individual freedom, no matter how honorable your intentions are.

I hold dear the self-reliant culture that shunned government aid and power, this is the culture I was raised with. It is too integral to my being to give up. Many Americans feel this way, no amount of sanctimonious or altruistic rhetoric can convince me otherwise.

You believe more government control is better, but all evidence shows the expanding government power has only made the United States a more inept country.

If Jim is the whiny goth poet, then I guess Mike is the spastic in our playground menagerie.

Empty rhetoric and ideological blather mean nothing. They mean even less when you don’t understand what you opponent is actually arguing.

Actually I do understand you that’s the porblem your a socialist commie that wants a piece of the pie, NO I meant 3/4 of it, that hard working capitalist rich/middle class made.

YOU define the poor with some bullshit chart that benefits you and the rich lobbyist. The rich lobbyist will make sure you and the poor never go anywhere. Your happy with that as long as your screwing the rich guy…

YOU MAKE ME SICK….

GBaker
“Why is it when the force of government is employed to achieve a social goal, it is considered noble but when the same purpose is accomplished by voluntary action in the market it is somehow less noble - because it was “driven by profit motives”?”

Because the market does not accomplish all social goals. Some, but not all. That is my very essence of my argument.

“As one of those fellow citizens, my desires constitute no claim upon them.”

You haven’t refuted that you wish to live in a safe, educated, healthy, clean society. If you do not place any claims on your fellow citizens to help achieve these desires then to whom do you place your claims on?

GBaker,
“Your definition is incomplete at best. It is vague, nebulous and non-specific. It leaves one with no way to discern or determine what those services may be”.
“If legitimate government services are to be determined by what you believe, are not my beliefs, or Jim’s or even Crumbs just as valid? There is no objective standard here, just a matter of opinion”
I don’t understand your fixation with telling me to define these ‘vital public services’ (I have offered the examples of what might be ‘vital public services’ in my view). What you believe are vital public services will be different to what I believe are vital public services based on our differing political viewpoints/ideological stances. It is indeed a matter of opinion or ‘belief’ and not at all objective.

What matters are our underlying reasons for saying what we believe is a vital public service and what we believe is a non-vital service which does not need public provision. I believe that a meritocratic society is a desirable end to aim for in politics. It is based on my belief that individuals have differing abilities and should be allowed to rise and fall based on those, and only those, abilities. I have hence identified the constraints stopping this situation from coming about, and I have suggested that it should be the government that removes these obstacles as the market does not do so on its own. How is this ‘vague and nebulous’?

“I would submit that in a meritocracy rewards are earned, not distributed.”
A semantic point, really. If you work for rewards they will be distributed to you by your employer/consumers and similarly you can be said to have ‘earned’ them from your employer/consumers as well.

You might as well be a student in a creative writing course at community college; when the prof hands back your poem with a 47% grade you moan “You just don’t GET IT, you don’t UNDERSTAND ME!!!”

crumb, read this out loud and fast

I am we Todd it
I am sofa king we Todd it.

You seriously expect me to believe that this column is ironic? Now THAT is bullshit.

Without a shred of irony you accuse all colleges and universities of breeding anti-Americans.

The sarcasm in “It is bad enough that these leaders veered right, but they actually suggested their “faith” in God might help them in their duties as president—Oh NO!” does not point towards any kind of mocking absurdity except mocking the absurdity of atheism or separation of church and state.

You say, without a hint of irony, that Reagan was directed by his faith to pursue the policies he did - policies directly contradicted by his faith. If this is supposed to be ironic, it can only be directed at Reagan himself.

There is no irony, there is no mocking of absurdities in this column, except in a handful of throwaway jokes that follow your anti-Left, anti-intellectual rants. My problem with this column is much deeper than some superficial namecalling [”Barack “Stalin” Obama], it is the fundamental contradictions and absurdities of what you are declaring to be true. Yet you keep dodging me when I ask you to answer for them. You answer with derails and with weak excuses [”it’s IRONIC jeez you JUST DON’T GET IT *roll eyes*”] that do not even pertain to the text. I outlined your absurd beliefs. Now answer my post.

I’ve chastised absurdity by being absurd, and you don’t get it.

What more is there to say when you don’t even get the absurdity of, “…George “Hitler” Bush and replace him with Barack “Stalin” Obama…”

You have no intellectual integrity Crumb, the programs you love are the ones which have killed us.

The United States became the strongest and wealthiest nation by embracing capitalism; socialism saw the USSR’s demise and is now seeing ours.

Today the U.S. is headed for bankruptcy and the two favorite lefty programs, Social Security and Medicare are insolvent.

The lefty answer to fix this is even more lefty programs and higher taxes. Brilliant!

Every response you make is three huge comments long, why is that? Beauty is in simplicity Crumb, if you can’t convince them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

You’re the 5 star bullshit king. For you, no lie that supports the socialist agenda is too egregious.

The aphorism isn’t about disapproving of one’s poor station in life. It is about helping the poor by teaching them and assisting them in becoming wealthy and capable of self-sustenance. Experience is the greatest teacher; Teach by example: there are many other aphorisms that complement the Fisherman aphorism by showing that teaching is an ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT.

Criticising the poor will not stop them from being poor. You must engage yourself with them and actively help them rebuild their life. Criticism is passive and ultimately useless for someone who is incapable of changing their ways due to lack of experience and lack of strong teachers in their life.

But this is YET ANOTHER deflection of the actual topic at hand. Can you answer for any of your absurd statements in this column?

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you;” “Do unto others as they should like done unto them [Shaw].”

If I am a lazy good for nothing loser I would hope you would reward my sloth with harsh criticism motivating me to make something of myself.

Never give a man a fish! I’m sure you know the aphorism Crumb.

So, what, does this mean nobody can answer for the ludicrous statements in this column?

I am responding to you because you took the time to make rational, strong arguments and I feel it would be rude to ignore them. I am however still waiting on a response to my first comment, and I don’t want the discussion to be entirely sidetracked - this tangent will inevitably show up in a future column’s comments, as it has so many in the past.

“GB- I always thought the Golden rule was: ”Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” It appears you believe it is: “Force others to do as you would have done.””

The Golden Rule is “Love thy neighbour as thyself;” “Do unto others as you would have done unto you;” “Do unto others as they should like done unto them [Shaw].” It’s an axiom of universal love and good will, it’s the basic underlying rule of all healthy society. It is not a test for whether an action is just or unjust; it is a commandment to go out, and love others as thyself, and do unto them whatever. So yes, the Golden Rule is the basis of the Welfare State, and it is internally consistent with the responsibility of all citizens to themselves and each other, of the wealthy for the poor, and as such, it is all handily labeled as Tory Conservatism. It’s a modern reformulation of idealized Feudalism, basically, but with much greater social mobility. The higher ups, who benefit by the labours of the lower downs, share that benefit and maintain an organic, homeostatic, universally beneficial society.

Pointless careerism is seeking job advancement for its own sake, not because it satisfies you but because it’s something to do, something that’s expected of you. If someone really, truly enjoys their job, they’ll invest themselves in it creatively and job advancement will be natural. Careerism is empty pursuit of more money towards no real end. Money doesn’t buy happiness.

I am not a socialist, and redistribution of wealth is not the core of my philosophy. It is a means of patching Capitalism until the whole enterprise can be junked and consumerism can die.

There are also problems with the Free Market: it obviously does not function as well as it is intended to. When competitors start co-operating with each other, the Invisible Hand atrophies and dies. Price-fixing and market stability defeat the whole Free Market ideal. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; a stable market is a very good thing to have in a simpler [read: poorer] society such as Feudal England or Rural America. There are many homeostatic benefits to a stable, co-operative economy, but I’m not going into that here because it’s a basic critique of Capitalism that is NOT Marxist.

“The only responsibility they owe me is the same one I owe them: to refrain from the use of force in dealing with each other.”

I’m no objectivist, so to me a society isn’t very healthy if the sole goal of every member is to exploit the others for personal gain.

“Bad example Crumb. If one finds oneself with skills no longer in demand in the market place, the solution is to learn new skills.”

That’s not always a feasible solution. For example, someone who spends several years after high school to master a trade can’t stop and take the time again when a recession hits and nobody needs carpenters anymore. It may impose on personal finances, and if there are dependents involved, it could be necessary to seek short-term patches. Not everybody has the economic freedom to seek education whenever they want or need it. Those apprentice positions may not even be available in a bad economic climate. Skilled labourers live largely by the whim of the market - look at all the job cuts by American auto makers in factories over the past decade.

“Your definition is incomplete at best. It is vague, nebulous and non-specific.”
This isn’t a bad thing. The Constitution is vague and non-specific in many places because it is supposed to be a flexible document that can adapt to the times. Matt’s position leaves open the possibility of as-yet undreamed services, like universal internet [to remove control of information from the telecom companies and give everyone equal access to the same information and opportunity] being adapted as for the “general welfare,” itself a vague priority of the Constitution.

“GB- I would submit that in a meritocracy rewards are earned, not distributed.”

I think he meant distributed in a demographic chart sense, not doled out by a central authority.

Politics is largely based on populism: pander to the biggest demographics and you win; the mob determines the new ethics.

“And by what motive is government action driven?”

If the State is the People, then the government should operate according to the People, and should operate according to their best interests i.e. greater welfare:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [Preamble of the Constitution]

Nobody is deriding the efforts of private donors and charities. Matt is pointing out the truth about the Free Market: that it is an economic structure that is based around profit. The key idea of the Free Market is that open competition between producers for market share will reduce market prices and improve quality. In this way, the mechanism of Free Market makes things better for everyone - Producers and Consumers. The issue is that the poor or otherwise encumbered are neither of these groups and there is no benefit for them in the Free Market system.

From Crumb,
“…many people with a strong work ethic do not get drawn out of poverty by it. For example, one could be a skilled labourer in a market that has no need for that skill until years later.”

Bad example Crumb. If one finds oneself with skills no longer in demand in the market place, the solution is to learn new skills.

Crumb- “I’m an old fashioned Tory and I see the Golden Rule as the only universal truth of ethics, so I say that the middle and upper classes have a duty to improve the society they live in.”

GB- I always thought the Golden rule was: ”Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” It appears you believe it is: “Force others to do as you would have done.”

It seems rather elitist to me to denigrate someone’s reasons for pursuing a productive career. What may be pointless and wasteful in your view may well be the joy of another’s life. And it seems rather self defeating for a socialist to denigrate the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, since the redistribution of that wealth lies at the core of your philosophy.

Crumb- “[To clarify: I support greater wealth for the poor because their poverty encumbers them from enjoying life as freely as others without worrying about their personal and familial security every step of the way]”

GB- We may agree on the ends. It is the means that are in dispute.

Matt- “As US citizens, Mike and Jim have responsibilities to their fellow citizens who want to live in a decent society with law and order, educated population, clean environment etc.”

GB- As one of those fellow citizens, my desires constitute no claim upon them. The only responsibility they owe me is the same one I owe them: to refrain from the use of force in dealing with each other.

From Matt:

GB - “I would ask first, “How are “vital public services” defined?””

Matt- “Vital public services are services which must be provided to all members of a society if that society is to achieve the goal of meritocracy.”

GB- Your definition is incomplete at best. It is vague, nebulous and non-specific. It leaves one with no way to discern or determine what those services may be.

Matt- “Meritocracy is defined as a society in which rewards are distributed purely on ability and work effort rather than on social background etc.”

GB- I would submit that in a meritocracy rewards are earned, not distributed.

“Then I would ask, “Are those defined services legitimate government functions?””

Matt- “I believe it is the government’s duty to enable a meritocratic society by removing barriers such as extreme poverty, lack of education and lack of healthcare which prevent those who are constrained by them from achieveing their true potential.”

GB -This definition gives me a bit of heartburn on several levels. 1.) You have defined legitimate government services as what you BELIEVE they SHOULD be rather than what they are. Does the Constitution play no small role here? 2.) Once again the definition is vague and non-specific, leaving one with no way to determine what you may believe is legitimate. 3.) If legitimate government services are to be determined by what you believe, are not my beliefs, or Jim’s or even Crumbs just as valid? There is no objective standard here, just a matter of opinion.

Matt- “To reject government action in favour of market forces will not do as the market is driven only by profit motives.”

GB- And by what motive is government action driven? Why is it when the force of government is employed to achieve a social goal, it is considered noble but when the same purpose is accomplished by voluntary action in the market it is somehow less noble - because it was “driven by profit motives”?

Crumb,

Your retarded and a fag too!

You don’t understand a funny line when you here one.

Crumb,

It sounds like you agree with Ann Coulter’s statement, that “Christianity is the perfection of Judaism”.

You also have no understanding of the capitalist system. We want people pursuing career for career’s sake because success in a capitalist society only comes by providing value to society.

It is only in socialist societies where you can advance up ranks through political schemes without providing anything of value to mankind.

Now can we PLEASE end this derail and get back to the topic at hand? It is actually about everything EXCEPT taxes.

“Why are you so afraid of Mr. Obama’s middle name, Jim? Why do you insist on bringing it up? Is it because it looks “foreign” - because you wish to pander to people’s underlying fear of the “other” that has underwritten centuries of racial discrimination in America?”

“Where does Jesus inform Reagan to pursue the policies he did? Seems to me that Reagan, like all Christian politicians, just did what he wanted and used Jesus to excuse it, even when it contradicted Jesus’ teachings.”

“If Bush is Hitler, then Obama is Stalin, and that makes Hitler good? Wouldn’t it just make the other even less desirable? Yet you defend Hitler Bush in this column. Unless, of course, I am missing the point - that you are being a hypocrite and baselessly accusing Obama of being a COMMIE the same way people accuse Bush of being a Nazi.”

“Do you have any proof for this, or do you just not understand what “conservative” means and how it varies from place to place as they all have different histories to conserve?”

“So, only ignorant hillbillies understand complex geopolitics? I find this hard to believe, as they don’t even know what liberal and conservative mean.”

“The 22nd Amendment was repealed?”

“I take it you’ve never even been to a college or university class.”

“Nationalism is the exclusive domain of socialists, despite American Nationalism and every non-socialist nationalist politic.”

“For the left, if you are male and don’t try to stick that particular extremity into another male’s hind end at least once, then you’re not open-minded and you’re a bigot too!”

What?

The socialist state is basically a capitalist state that seeks the perfection of capitalism - if capitalism were a machine, socialism is the mechanic that oils the parts and keeps it running smoothly. Marx and Engels wanted capitalism to die outright, but socialism wants capitalism to work better.

GBaker:

That is true, I had forgotten the whole federal aspect of a federal republic. Even so, the same questions could be applied to State governments: what is a legitimate function of government and what is not?

The strong work ethic may be the only [or one of the few] ways out of poverty, but that still does not make it a universal remedy: many people with a strong work ethic do not get drawn out of poverty by it. For example, one could be a skilled labourer in a market that has no need for that skill until years later.

I’ve stated before, and Matt has given a more pragmatic answer, that the needs of the poor are the responsibility of the wealthy because of a general principle of social responsibility. The wealthy draw on society’s resources too, and society is only as healthy as the sum of its parts. Better education and health care and opportunities, even if offered by the government, contribute to a greater level of general welfare, and result in many more people capable of meaningful contribution to social growth. I’m an old fashioned Tory and I see the Golden Rule as the only universal truth of ethics, so I say that the middle and upper classes have a duty to improve the society they live in.

Pursuing a career for the sake of that career is, to me, pointless and wasteful. A career should be pursued because you enjoy it, or because it is a means to an end - basically any reason other than corporate advancement alone. Seeking wealth for wealth’s sake is a hollow goal.

[To clarify: I support greater wealth for the poor because their poverty encumbers them from enjoying life as freely as others without worrying about their personal and familial security every step of the way]

Matt,

No one disagrees with you that taxes are necessary, but our system is corrupt. When one group can benefit by voting for taxes on another group no justice can prevail.

A flat tax system where everyone feels some effect of taxes moderates this willingness to vote for what someone else is responsible.

Additionally, there are no reigns on government with our system. Charlie Wrangle recently said, “We need to figure out what it costs to run the government and then tax accordingly.” This coming from a bureaucrat.

The government must not have a blank check, bureaucrats will never “figure out what it costs to run the government”, bureaucrats will always ask for more than they have. Their power does not come from responsible management of our money, it comes by spending as much as possible.

GBaker,

Firstly, I pay tribute to you as the first poster to properly engage with the arguments I have put forward.

Secondly, to deal with your points (some of which Crumbinist has already taken up):

“I would ask first, “How are “vital public services” defined?””

Vital public services are services which must be provided to all members of a society if that society is to achieve the goal of meritocracy. Meritocracy is defined as a society in which rewards are distributed purely on ability and work effort rather than on social background etc.

“Then I would ask, “Are those defined services legitimate government functions?””

I believe it is the government’s duty to enable a meritocratic society by removing barriers such as extreme poverty, lack of education and lack of healthcare which prevent those who are constrained by them from achieveing their true potential. To reject government action in favour of market forces will not do as the market is driven only by profit motives.

“How does taking money from Sake Mike alleviate any of the above problems?”

Well, (to take one example) by taxing Sake Mike and those like him we can build schools and invest in better equipment for those schools to help educate our children who can then use the skills they learn to become the next generation of bankers/mechanics etc based on their abilities rather than how much money their parents have.

“Why is someone else’s life, or station in life, my or Mike’s or Jim’s responsibility? Why is it yours?”

As US citizens, Mike and Jim have responsibilities to their fellow citizens who want to live in a decent society with law and order, educated population, clean environment etc. Taxing them is a recognition of these responsibilities in law, no more than a law against murder is a recognition of our responsibilities not to kill others.

Crumbunist wrote:

“The difference between socialism and Marxism is that in Marxism, the socialist state is a means to an end, but in socialism, the socialist state is an end in itself. ”

You are correct that Marx and Engels fully understood capitalism would not go quietly in a sudden conversion to communism, therefore socialism was a necessary vehicle to achieve the ultimate end.

You and I may be working with different definitions here.

The socialist state as an end in itself? What is the states purpose? What does that end achieve? By what means? Aren’t we dealing with a distinction without a difference?

Crumbunist wrote: “If “legitimate government function” is defined solely by the Constitution and existing law, then much of what is currently operated by the government is illegitimate, …”

I agree. The Constitution defines the purpose of the government and enumerates as well as limits the powers the Federal government may exercise in pursuing its purpose. Consequently, much of the “services” our Federal government now performs (or forces the states to perform) are illegitimate.

“…and new services can never be provided.”

Sure they can. However, it would require amending the Constitution.

“Deferring to the existing documents cannot provide novel solutions to problems;”

Actually, doing so would encourage novel solutions – just not federal solutions. In fact that is one of the reasons for a Federal Republic. The idea is the Federal government is limited in its functions and the states are free to offer whatever “solutions to problems” they find workable.

“This, as I have seen so eloquently put [by Marxists EEK] is an example of the Cult of Labour. Work work work work and you will be rewarded for your suffering [labour] later”
I too have seen that written somewhere, and if I recall correctly, it was a Marxist born into wealth who never held a job of any significance, nor owned or operated a business, who made the term significant.
“Obviously it works for some people, but it does not work for all people - it’s not a magical cure-all for poverty.”
I would submit that short of a rich relative leaving one a large estate, it is the ONLY way out of poverty.
I will grant you that some people’s circumstances in life are much more difficult than other’s. But, there are millions of stories in America of people who have overcome the most dire of circumstances to create a better life for themselves and their families. Some have gone on to become giants of business or industry. Many have achieved much more modest success and simply improved their overall circumstances. There is a common denominator among those successes – a work ethic. A belief they could do it with hard work, dedication, and perseverance.
That not everyone succeeds does not negate the value of the ethic.
“Yes, there are some plain lazy people on welfare, doing nothing and getting a free ride. But there are many who NEED support because their lives are run on a shoestring budget,…”
To rephrase an earlier (unanswered) question: Why is their need your responsibility? Or mine, or anyone else’s? Why does someone’s need constitute a claim upon the government? By what moral principle does my NEED override your right to the fruits of your own labor?
“ and they have more important responsibilities than pointless careerism. To ignore the genuine need of the encumbered poor in favour of worshiping labour is Scroogish.”
Why do you view careerism as pointless? What do you see as wrong with the singular dedication to a desired goal? Especially when pursuit of that goal may be the key to improving one’s life?
I find it interesting you discount the value of productive work in unencumbering the impoverished, but support forcing everyone else to support their (undefined) needs.

The difference between socialism and Marxism is that in Marxism, the socialist state is a means to an end, but in socialism, the socialist state is an end in itself.

GBaker:

For one to assess whether a service is a “legitimate government function,” one needs to define legitimate government function. Many people have many different ideas of what constitutes government, and what constitutes good government apart from that. If “legitimate government function” is defined solely by the Constitution and existing law, then much of what is currently operated by the government is illegitimate, and new services can never be provided. Deferring to the existing documents cannot provide novel solutions to problems; the debate must be opened up, even if it just results in the Constitutional limits being maintained.

“Many of us who take full responsibility for our own lives, and guard our freedom to do so jealously, began life in dreadful poverty and through hard work and continuing education managed to build a decent life. There is no such thing as “trapped” in poverty.”

This, as I have seen so eloquently put [by Marxists EEK] is an example of the Cult of Labour. Work work work work and you will be rewarded for your suffering [labour] later! Obviously it works for some people, but it does not work for all people - it’s not a magical cure-all for poverty.

Many people are trapped in poverty because they are encumbered, prevented from achieving wealth for themselves by other responsibilities. Like taking care of the family [especially if this forces you to drop out of school, secondary or college], or paying [out the ass] to support a sick loved one, or one’s own disability/illness, or discrimination, or a lack of skills. Slaving away will not solve any of these problems if these problems are money-pits. Yes, there are some plain lazy people on welfare, doing nothing and getting a free ride. But there are many who NEED support because their lives are run on a shoestring budget, and they have more important responsibilities than pointless careerism. To ignore the genuine need of the encumbered poor in favour of worshiping labour is Scroogish.

Oops! lost the end of the previous post.

And Crumb,

Marx believed socialism was the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, before the revolution of the proletariat was complete. So, if one is a Marxist, one is necessarily a socialist as well as a communist.

Quoting Matt:

The fact that you work so hard does not make you a greedy selfish prick. Nobody is arguing that. However, what might put you in that category is your reluctance to recognise any responsibility whatsoever to contribute towards vital public services (such as education or healthcare) which benefit everyone in society (including yourself).

The problem here is the phrase “vital public services”. You mention just two examples. I would ask first, “How are “vital public services” defined?” Then I would ask, “Are those defined services legitimate government functions?” Then we can talk about whether there is any responsibility for “contributing towards” them and the proper vehicle for doing so.
Further quoting Matt:
For you, presumably, it is OK for others to be trapped in poverty (as many are in America), for crime to rise, educational standards to decline and our environment to be destroyed so long as YOU get to keep all of YOUR MONEY that YOU EARNED and YOU SHOULD KEEP. To be frank, you sound like a spoilt child.

How does taking money from Sake Mike alleviate any of the above problems?

Many of us who take full responsibility for our own lives, and guard our freedom to do so jealously, began life in dreadful poverty and through hard work and continuing education managed to build a decent life. There is no such thing as “trapped” in poverty.

Why is someone else’s life, or station in life, my or Mike’s or Jim’s responsibility? Why is it yours?

Paying for legitimate government functions is not necessarily onerous. Paying hard earned money to a government which then, (after skimming off the top) transfers that money to someone who has not earned it, is. But then… some folks here think it is perfectly justified to force those who earn more, to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes simply because they can afford it, and believe that is fair and just!

And Crumb,

Marx believed socialism was the intermediate stage be

Sake Mike,

“So, I work two 8hrs jobs a day (job #1 auto mechanic job #2 any side/job I can get like fixing some house, FMK Firearms, auto repair, selling things on ebay, taking care of elderly, ext) . I get up at 4:30am and go to bed 11:45pm so I can make $200,000 a year. So, am I a greedy selfish prick? Does some have the right to take away MY MONEY?”

The fact that you work so hard does not make you a greedy selfish prick. Nobody is arguing that. However, what might put you in that category is your reluctance to recognise any responsibility whatsoever to contribute towards vital public services (such as education or healthcare) which benefit everyone in society (including yourself).

For you, presumably, it is OK for others to be trapped in poverty (as many are in America), for crime to rise, educational standards to decline and our environment to be destroyed so long as YOU get to keep all of YOUR MONEY that YOU EARNED and YOU SHOULD KEEP. To be frank, you sound like a spoilt child.

Jim,

“I was not comparing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, to Obama, I was showing that socialism is evil under evil, and still evil, even under a decent mis-guided guy like Obama. ”

From Jim’s article:

“Barack “Stalin” Obama”

A slip of the finger on the keypad, Jim?

“11 more paragraphs Crumb, and you still can’t deflect my singular theme.”

I wasn’t trying to. I was confronting you on the simple fact that YOU deflected this discussion AWAY from the topic at hand and towards your pet issue, when there was not even a tenuous connection between the two. Oh, and a grown up does not resort to petty name-calling.

This discussion is not about taxes. The word tax does not appear once in this column. The word tax does not appear until Ingle’s post-script, WHEREIN IT IS A SIDE-COMMENT IN A SIDE-COMMENT ABOUT YOUR HISTORICAL IGNORANCE.

You refuse to address the absurdities and contradictions in your own column. You refuse to explain how, for example, not believing in Jesus requires you to be a sodomite. Or how the entire world exists only in terms of American politics. Or how anything you’ve ever said about college is supported by fact and not hearsay and assumption.

Crumb once again displays his glaring ignorance and inability to appreciate the contextual environment surrounding a fact. He says:

“This is where I wait for the HILARIOUS response that high taxes ARE an atrocity [which would make Eisenhower one of History’s Greatest Monsters with his 90%+ tax rate]. High taxes are not the exclusive domain of socialists, which severs the last thread holding your counter-argument to Ingle’s.”

But Crumb, what you fail to appreciate or even understand is that in the days of of tax rates like that there were so many tax shelters that if you were the one idiot in the country paying that rate that was your problem. I know you say you are not a US citizen…(then why you are here baffles me) but a big deal in1986 here (i think that was the year) we have major deductions in taxes BUT most if not all of the MAJOR tax shelters went away.

Do you honestly think someone would continue to produce and but their ass to be put into a 90% tax bracket? Do you? Do you punk? Hell no…I would say screw that, I am not busting my ass to expand my business (and employ other Americans ) when the STATE is going to confiscate 90% of what I make but yet it is I that take all the risk in expanding operations, plant capacity, etc.

Your ignorance is staggering. Sure the tax rate on paper might have been 90% (marginal-look it up if you don’t know what that means) but everyone sheltered the income from those absolutely THEFT rates.

You talk like you are smart…I just think you are a government school educated slacker jealous of the benefits that hardworkers reap. you would just rather vote for criminals that would seize the hard work of others so you didn’t have to worry about paying a dentist bill.

Crumb:

“You always justify it as for the sake of yourself and your own class. YES you are hiding your self-interest, and YES you are doing so to distract us from the real issue of the debate. That you would do whatever you can to preserve your own wealth, KNOWING THAT OTHERS NEED IT MORE THAN YOU, demonstrates this greed outright. ”

Holy shit…you are kidding right crumb? Crumb..you and your ilk are absolutely a danger to responsible citizens. You make the comments I said in a halfway jest…waterboarding , hanging socialists, etc, seem like a perfectly reasonable solution to the cancer that is infecting so many societies in this world. You SCARE ME. How do you know that the crack head armed robber doesn’t NEED the money more than the store clerk and the store owner? Just because you can get a mob of uneducated or, in the case of our universities, very educated IDIOTS to vote to take someone elses property does NOT make it morally just or right. THEFT IS THEFT. Paying taxes for infrastructure is one thing, wealth “redistribution” is something entirely different.

I wonder how many people are in prison because of their own unique brand and approach to wealth “redistribution”??? Just because you get some congressidiot to buy votes with handouts doesn’t mean they aren’t just as morally guilty as the person that sticks a knife in your face and takes your $20.

You really showed your true colors with that statement. I have seen the enemy and the enemy is YOU.

crumbunist! crumbunist! crumbunist!

How old are you????
“That you would do whatever you can to preserve your own wealth, KNOWING THAT OTHERS NEED IT MORE THAN YOU, demonstrates this greed outright. ”

So, I work two 8hrs jobs a day (job #1 auto mechanic job #2 any side/job I can get like fixing some house, FMK Firearms, auto repair, selling things on ebay, taking care of elderly, ext) . I get up at 4:30am and go to bed 11:45pm so I can make $200,000 a year. So, am I a greedy selfish prick? Does some have the right to take away MY MONEY?

One more thing dumb ass,

I was not comparing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, to Obama, I was showing that socialism is evil under evil, and still evil, even under a decent mis-guided guy like Obama.

11 more paragraphs Crumb, and you still can’t deflect my singular theme.

Let’s just say your right, I’m a selfish greedy prick. I got it.

A child says, “Tax the shit out of that greedy selfish prick, and when he quits working at least he won’t be getting rich anymore.”

A grown up says, “Let the greedy selfish prick keep more of what he earns and encourage him to work so we can bring in more revenue.”

That’s the difference between a lib and a conservative. A lib wants to rebuild the world in his un-objective view of fairness and a conservative deals with the world the way it is and uses humanity’s inherent nature and motivation to solve problems with realistic solutions.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let’s say I break into your house. Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just
trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house …And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold,

uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America ! if you agree, pass it on (in English ). Share it if you see the value of it.

If not blow it off………
along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

You put the final nail in the coffin of your rhetoric when you claim ambivalence about your empathy: “I am not claiming to have empathy.” Yes, you WERE claiming to have empathy, right when you said that you were not arguing for your own sake, but the sake of others:

“Believe it or not, MY LAMENTS ABOUT TAXES ARE MORE HELPFUL TO YOU THAN ME. I AM GOING TO BE RICH–PERIOD. After 15 successful years in business (after quite a few unsuccessful) I have begun to develop a foundation from which my eventual wealth will be guaranteed … I CAN BEAT DOWN MY TAXABLE INCOME by spending $100,000.00 on equipment, advertising, travel, etc. CAN YOU?”

The fact that you backed off from this empathy shows that you were not being empathetic at all, or you’d be much more dedicated to it. Look at the way Matt, Ingle and I argue. We always justify it, right or wrong, as for the sake of others. You always justify it as for the sake of yourself and your own class. YES you are hiding your self-interest, and YES you are doing so to distract us from the real issue of the debate. That you would do whatever you can to preserve your own wealth, KNOWING THAT OTHERS NEED IT MORE THAN YOU, demonstrates this greed outright.

“How much more direct could I be? Where is my obfuscation?”
Ingle said one thing about taxes. One. And that is that socialist policies (FDR and Truman paying for the feeding of the German people) prevented Hitler from being History’s Greatest Murderer. You are obfuscating the argument by deflecting it to money matters. Ingle was responding to your misinterpreting history to say that SOCIALISM IS PURE EVIL by showing that no, it is not [and Hitler was a very bad socialist if he was one at all]. How is

“Believe it or not, my laments about taxes are more helpful to you than to me. I am going to be rich—period. After 15 successful years in business (after quite a few unsuccessful) I have begun to develop a foundation from which my eventual wealth will be guaranteed. Within that foundation I also have at my disposal many tools to shelter my income by investing in equipment, property, in advertising and in technology in the promotion of my business. These are all advantages out of the hands of the middle class blue collar worker from which I have come. I can beat down my taxable income by spending $100,000.00 on equipment, advertising, travel, etc. Can you?”

A response to

“If you knew anything about history, you would know that Hitler plowed up all of the crops in Germany to make jet fuel for the world’s first operational jet fighter, the ME 262. Stalin only gets 1st place in cruelty because the “EVIL SOCIALIST LIBERALS” who had control of the American Government at the time decided to use “your tax dollars” to feed the starving German people in 1945. If not for Roosevelt and Truman’s “socialist agenda”, Hitler would have killed more people than Stalin because of the total starvation of his people. Also bear in mind that Stalin came into power in 1929. Hitler gained TRUE power after the death of Hindenberg in 1934. Hitler died in 1945, Stalin in 1953. That means that Stalin had 13 more years to kill people than Hitler.”

Also Crumb,

While you continually accuse me of not responding to the arguments here, you don’t respond to my arguments here.

How about responding to my argument that increasing tax rates shift the burden to the middle class while the so called “rich” will make less and then pay less?

If you live off of 36k a year, you probably are going to need that income regardless of shifting tax rates.

If I make 200k and don’t like my tax rate, I can probably drop my income to 100k and still make ends meet, cutting my taxes paid to the government by 50-60k.

One more thing Crumb,

I am not claiming to have empathy.

Whether I do or not is unimportant.

I am just telling you I am going to change my behavior if I feel overtaxed, and people who depend on the stimulus I provide to the economy with my efforts are going to pay with less opportunity while I pay with less income.

You still don’t get it.

Crumb,

David-Ingle’s complete post was about taxes and to that I responded.

Here is a piece,

“…For pity’s sake guys, Jim calls someone who makes $200,000 a year a poor businessman. The average annual income in the U.S. is $36,400 a year. Crumb, you and Matt and I are bothered by the fact that 20% of the world has 80% of the wealth and resources. Jim is not. Jim cares about his money. All his arguments are about money. Why do you think that he habitually obfuscates your arguements Crumb…”

How much more direct could I be? Where is my obfuscation?

You’re on the crack pipe again.

I find your sudden empathy hard to swallow, given that all your complaints and problems with high taxes in the past have been about how YOU will suffer as a middle class small businessman. Pretending to care about others and not yourself at this late stage in the game will not win anyone over.

Also, from column 60…

“The highest tax rate ever in the United States was 91%. Nobody ever paid the tax.”
Can you prove your statement, that nobody paid taxes under Eisenhower, during the most prosperous time in US history, then the bleeding military-industrial-congressional complex was instituted?

But the real question I have is: why did you start ranting about TAXES when David was talking about mass murderers? How is TAXES relevant to the discussion in any way other than a fringe tangent?

David-Ingle,

Believe it or not, my laments about taxes are more helpful to you than to me. I am going to be rich—period. After 15 successful years in business (after quite a few unsuccessful) I have begun to develop a foundation from which my eventual wealth will be guaranteed. Within that foundation I also have at my disposal many tools to shelter my income by investing in equipment, property, in advertising and in technology in the promotion of my business. These are all advantages out of the hands of the middle class blue collar worker from which I have come. I can beat down my taxable income by spending $100,000.00 on equipment, advertising, travel, etc. Can you?

If you didn’t “get your history wrong” you would know that raising taxes actually shifts the burden of taxation to guys like you. When the top rate was 70% before Reagan, the richest 1% paid about 19% of all income taxes. When Clinton was president the richest 1% paid 34% of all income taxes and after the Bush tax cuts the richest 1% paid 39% of all income taxes.

You can read all sorts of articles about “disparity of income” showing how the rich benefit by increased incomes when taxes are cut, and they benefit more than the lower classes. That will never change.

When you increase taxes, the people in the economy who create the jobs and make business investments are the ones who will receive the greatest increase in income, but the workers incomes increase as well, even if there is disparity. Meanwhile everybody pays less of a tax rate, but more revenue to the government.

Raising taxes motivates me to spend more time on leisure and less on business development. This business development is what people like you require to increase your income.

If you detach your emotional drive to “get” me with taxes and use a little realistic analysis, you will find you are really “getting” yourself.

Your buddies, Crumb and Matt commented much on this one (http://formykountry.com/?p=101) maybe you missed it.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary

The SLA 2007 Salary Survey results show that the average salary increases for SLA members have outpaced inflation yet again. Based on salaries as of April 1, the mean percent increase in salaries for 2007 over 2006 was 5.1% for U.S. based respondents. This is 1.1% higher than the mean percent increase from 2005 to 2006. For the same 12 month period, the Consumer Price Index rose less than 3%. Salaries for Canadian members were 4.9% higher on April 1, 2007, than a year earlier, while the CPI had increased just 2% in the same period.

The average salary for U.S. members who answered the survey was $69,446, compared with $67,400 in 2006, and the mean for Canadian members was Can$ 67,171 compared with Can$ 65,522 in 2006.

P.S. Jim,
If you knew anything about history, you would know that Hitler plowed up all of the crops in Germany to make jet fuel for the world’s first operational jet fighter, the ME 262. Stalin only gets 1st place in cruelty because the “EVIL SOCIALIST LIBERALS” who had control of the American Government at the time decided to use “your tax dollars” to feed the starving German people in 1945. If not for Roosevelt and Truman’s “socialist agenda”, Hitler would have killed more people than Stalin because of the total starvation of his people. Also bear in mind that Stalin came into power in 1929. Hitler gained TRUE power after the death of Hindenberg in 1934. Hitler died in 1945, Stalin in 1953. That means that Stalin had 13 more years to kill people than Hitler. I won’t argue money with you Jim, because there is no point. However, getting your history wrong really bugs me, and I will treat you pedantically until you are properly informed.

Crumb and Matt, my two allies of good sense, why even argue with these people? They aren’t going to change. That’s exactly why they don’t get along with people like us. We understand that sometimes, change is nessessary. Think about the people you’re talking to. These are upper-class men who are afraid of losing their precious money. For pity’s sake guys, Jim calls someone who makes $200,000 a year a poor businessman. The average annual income in the U.S. is $36,400 a year. Crumb, you and Matt and I are bothered by the fact that 20% of the world has 80% of the wealth and resources. Jim is not. Jim cares about his money. All his arguments are about money. Why do you think that he habitually obfuscates your arguements Crumb. When you get it down to the basics of greed, he has to change the nature of the arguement to conceal his avarice. I mean, if it’s just fun for you than fine, but don’t get your hopes up about him seeing the light. Rich people will always be this way.

“She’d still vote for the left (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Barack Obama)”
Ah, yes. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War, Death, Famine, and That Kid Next Door Who Won’t Turn Down His Stereo.

Barack Obama is in no way comparable to the other three, except in imagined, cartoonishly exaggerated veins.

Hmmm Jim a half decent piece for once - fascism is indeed a close variant of communism. However, you’ve fallen flat on your face again with your homophoblic/bordering-on-racist views. No surprise really but just to remind you to try and snap out of it every once in a while:

“For the left, if you are male and don’t try to stick that particular extremity into another male’s hind end at least once, then you’re not open-minded and you’re a bigot too!”

No one on the left says you must be gay or you’re a bigot. What they do say is that we should accept gay people as human beings with the same rights as everyone else. Is there something wrong with this, Jim?

“Socialism was evil under Hitler, it was evil under Stalin, it was evil under Mao, and too, it will be evil under the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.”

Why are you so afraid of Mr. Obama’s middle name, Jim? Why do you insist on bringing it up? Is it because it looks “foreign” - because you wish to pander to people’s underlying fear of the “other” that has underwritten centuries of racial discrimination in America?

PS. To compare Barack Obama with Mao, Stalin and Hitler not only shows utter ignorance of history, but also a total disregard for the millions of people who suffered across the world due to the three genocidal regimes you reference. I would suggest that, in your more sober moments in which you are not a seething mass of right-wing polemic (if you enjoy such moments), you would probably re-think this grossly insulting and derogatory statement.

Oh, look at that. They’re all bizarre, contradictory beliefs.

Well let’s start with the most bizarre beliefs.

-Conservatism around the world conforms to how conservatism is defined in America

Do you have any proof for this, or do you just not understand what “conservative” means and how it varies from place to place as they all have different histories to conserve?

-The lesser of two evils is good

If Bush is Hitler, then Obama is Stalin, and that makes Hitler good? Wouldn’t it just make the other even less desirable? Yet you defend Hitler Bush in this column. Unless, of course, I am missing the point - that you are being a hypocrite and baselessly accusing Obama of being a COMMIE the same way people accuse Bush of being a Nazi.

-The only alternative to Christian moralism is mandatory sodomy

So the entire non-Christian world is gay?

-Nationalism is the exclusive domain of socialists, despite American Nationalism and every non-socialist nationalist politic.

Does this mean that American superpatriots are socialists too, as well as the Founding Fathers and Lincoln and the Confederates?

-Supply Side economics were preached by Christ, history’s greatest Capitalist.

Where does Jesus inform Reagan to pursue the policies he did? Seems to me that Reagan, like all Christian politicians, just did what he wanted and used Jesus to excuse it, even when it contradicted Jesus’ teachings.

-Anyone who understands what they’re talking about when they discuss ideologies is an elitist bred in liberal brainwashing camps.

So, only ignorant hillbillies understand complex geopolitics? I find this hard to believe, as they don’t even know what liberal and conservative mean.

-George Bush has an option of remaining in power but commies want to vote him out(???)

The 22nd Amendment was repealed?

-The “educational system that values liberal indoctination above all else …

I take it you’ve never even been to a college or university class.

Jim,

No crumb’s not coming around!! She’d still vote for the left (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Barack Obama) because its for the “greater good of the citizen, no one left behind” or in English ” free shit, free shit, free shit, for me, for me, for me where do I sign x…………………………………………………”

Crumb,

Your finally coming around.

Let me get this straight.

Mainstream media slanders the President as a Nazi.

Rush Limbaugh is NOT a neoconservative.

Anyone who understands what they’re talking about when they discuss ideologies is an elitist bred in liberal brainwashing camps.

The “educational system that values liberal indoctination above all else [college]” thinks that neoconservatives are worse oppressors than totalitarians, emperors, despots and theocracies.

Ronald Reagan actually did not have alzheimer’s and was not going senile.

Supply Side economics were preached by Christ, history’s greatest Capitalist.

Weak socialism as employed in US policy is as bad as Stalinist totalitarianism.

Nationalism is the exclusive domain of socialists, despite American Nationalism and every non-socialist nationalist politic.

The only alternative to Christian moralism is mandatory sodomy.

Conservatism around the world apparently obeys American values.

George Bush has an option of remaining in power but commies want to vote him out(???)

The lesser of two evils is good (???)

VAST SOCIALIST MUSLIM-NAZI CONSPIRACY