In his own words; in his own voice

I'm completely aware of the reasoning. I'd like to see if you are (no cheating)
 
You acted as if you didn't know those parts were there and now you say you're aware of the reasoning.
 
Gonz said:
The right to vote was intended to be held by landowners. Too many hands in the pickle jar (and it's, once again, proving true)
Click to expand...

So, only the rich, people who could afford land could vote?

do you get more voted for more land?
 
paul_valaru said:
So, only the rich, people who could afford land could vote?

do you get more voted for more land?
Click to expand...

One man, one vote. The dead need not apply.

If you owned land you had a vested interest in the prosperity of your country.

If you merely had your hand out, which is what we have now, your only vested interest is in the prosperity of those who will fill your hand.

Once the people find they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers the state is doomed. The takers will soon far outnumber the providers and the providers will decrease in number as the fruits of their labors becomes more and more worthless.

Imagine if the ultimate form of Socialism were enacted. Under the plan, every citizen of the United States will receive $100,000 to do with as they please. No more. No less. If a person makes $40,000 then the government would supplement their earnings by giving them $60,000. If they make $0 then the government would give them $100,000.

If a person makes over $100,000 then the amount over $100,000 would be confiscated by the government. If they make $1,000,000 the government would take $900,000.

Everyone is now equal, has an equal footing, and equal buying power in the marketplace.

Here is the problem. If the guy making $1,000,000 only gets to keep $100,000 then why should he work to earn $1,000,000 when $900,000 is going to be taken away. He can sit on his ass at home and do nothing but watch "The Price Is Right" and drink sodas and earn $100,000. So the earners and providers decide to simply live off of the $100,000 like everyone else. The coffers start to fail to fill up with the confiscated wealth and the system soon falls apart.

What I have described is the fast track to national financial collapse. The only difference is that we are currently on the slow-but-sure track.
 
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days
Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Bill Sammon is the Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
One man, one vote. The dead need not apply.

If you owned land you had a vested interest in the prosperity of your country.

If you merely had your hand out, which is what we have now, your only vested interest is in the prosperity of those who will fill your hand.

Once the people find they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers the state is doomed. The takers will soon far outnumber the providers and the providers will decrease in number as the fruits of their labors becomes more and more worthless.

Imagine if the ultimate form of Socialism were enacted. Under the plan, every citizen of the United States will receive $100,000 to do with as they please. No more. No less. If a person makes $40,000 then the government would supplement their earnings by giving them $60,000. If they make $0 then the government would give them $100,000.

If a person makes over $100,000 then the amount over $100,000 would be confiscated by the government. If they make $1,000,000 the government would take $900,000.

Everyone is now equal, has an equal footing, and equal buying power in the marketplace.

Here is the problem. If the guy making $1,000,000 only gets to keep $100,000 then why should he work to earn $1,000,000 when $900,000 is going to be taken away. He can sit on his ass at home and do nothing but watch "The Price Is Right" and drink sodas and earn $100,000. So the earners and providers decide to simply live off of the $100,000 like everyone else. The coffers start to fail to fill up with the confiscated wealth and the system soon falls apart.

What I have described is the fast track to national financial collapse. The only difference is that we are currently on the slow-but-sure track.
Click to expand...

see, what you REALLY need is real communism.

Everyone works towards the common good. Everyone is housed and fed. Everyone is equal.

People with the ability to become a doctor, become doctors. State takes care of the education.

People who do not do their share...are invited to leave.

(works small scale in israel)
 
jimpeel said:
One man, one vote. The dead need not apply.

If you owned land you had a vested interest in the prosperity of your country.

If you merely had your hand out, which is what we have now, your only vested interest is in the prosperity of those who will fill your hand.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, if you don't own land you merely have your hand out? Many many hard workers rent their entire lives. Your whole premise falls apart immediately and it's just un-Anerican.

Once the people find they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers the state is doomed. The takers will soon far outnumber the providers and the providers will decrease in number as the fruits of their labors becomes more and more worthless.

Imagine if the ultimate form of Socialism were enacted. Under the plan, every citizen of the United States will receive $100,000 to do with as they please. No more. No less. If a person makes $40,000 then the government would supplement their earnings by giving them $60,000. If they make $0 then the government would give them $100,000.

If a person makes over $100,000 then the amount over $100,000 would be confiscated by the government. If they make $1,000,000 the government would take $900,000.

Everyone is now equal, has an equal footing, and equal buying power in the marketplace.

Here is the problem. If the guy making $1,000,000 only gets to keep $100,000 then why should he work to earn $1,000,000 when $900,000 is going to be taken away. He can sit on his ass at home and do nothing but watch "The Price Is Right" and drink sodas and earn $100,000. So the earners and providers decide to simply live off of the $100,000 like everyone else. The coffers start to fail to fill up with the confiscated wealth and the system soon falls apart.
Click to expand...

Well since none of that is happening I suppose you have no point.

What I have described is the fast track to national financial collapse. The only difference is that we are currently on the slow-but-sure track.
Click to expand...

Good thing we have Democrats to pull us out of this mess.
 
golly i can't wait til i run for office.

i've had the pleasure of being exposed to a wide variety of ideas from a wide variety of people.

of course, that will mean that i believe the same things they do.

*yawn*
 
paul_valaru said:
see, what you REALLY need is real communism.

Everyone works towards the common good. Everyone is housed and fed. Everyone is equal.

People with the ability to become a doctor, become doctors. State takes care of the education.

People who do not do their share...are invited to leave.

(works small scale in israel)
Click to expand...

Yes, Communism has failed to work for no other reason than the right people have not been in charge. Obama is the answer. He can make Communism work.

It took the Russians 80 years to figure that out. If only Obama could have been born in 1900.
 
One wonders, given the current level of whining and gnashing of teeth, how some of you will react when things get bad and the real socialists and communists start coming out of the woodwork. :rofl4:
 
2minkey said:
golly i can't wait til i run for office.

i've had the pleasure of being exposed to a wide variety of ideas from a wide variety of people.

of course, that will mean that i believe the same things they do.

*yawn*
Click to expand...

There are many reasons to vote for Obama:

I'm Black and he's Black;

I'm White and I am steeped in White guilt;

He is charismatic and good looking and I like the way he speaks;

I actually researched his policies and I wholeheartedly agree with all of his policies and ideologies;

I am voting against McCain;

because:

He's too old;

He's a Republican;

I actually researched his policies and I wholeheartedly disagree with his policies and ideology.

​
 
jimpeel said:
There are many reasons to vote for Obama:

I'm Black and he's Black;

I'm White and I am steeped in White guilt;

He is charismatic and good looking and I like the way he speaks;

I actually researched his policies and I wholeheartedly agree with all of his policies and ideologies;

I am voting against McCain;

because:

He's too old;

He's a Republican;

I actually researched his policies and I wholeheartedly disagree with his policies and ideology.

​
Click to expand...

There are many reason to vote for McCain.

I'm white and he's white.

He uses air quotes to make fun of things like women's health

I've let the propaganda scare me and now I'm irrationally afraid of Obama.
 
paul_valaru said:
see, what you REALLY need is real communism.

Everyone works towards the common good. Everyone is housed and fed. Everyone is equal.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a beautiful cage. I'll stay out here in the cold if you don't mind.

paul_valaru said:
People with the ability to become a doctor, become doctors. State takes care of the education.
Click to expand...

Those Soviet doctors were the best. I hear Cuba's health care is top notch also.

paul_valaru said:
People who do not do their share...are invited to leave.
Click to expand...

A lot of times they are fed and housed far far away, never to be seen again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top