PDA

View Full Version : “What’s wrong with a little bit of Socialism?”



megimoo
03-20-2010, 06:09 PM
"This Video Will Give You An Idea Just What we're up against,the American welfare mentality !"

Yesterday, we attended an impromptu Tea Party outside the Evanston, IL office of Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Below are some photos and our in-depth video report documenting the event.

Very few people turned out, but that didn’t prevent the scene from turning dramatic as a couple of Obama supporters tossed around accusations of racism, called everyone idiots, and asked the absurd question: “What’s wrong with a little bit of Socialism?”

What's Wrong With A Little Socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZ79RHOmeI&feature=player_embedded
We think that all Americans ought to be free to live their lives in whatever manner they may like, and this includes eating and drinking more than what one actually requires to maintain healthy lean body mass. As lovers of Liberty, we celebrate individuality and the diversity of lifestyles that freedom engenders.

Ironically, the people pictured above, who called the Tea Party protesters idiots and asked, “What’s wrong with a little Socialism?” (seen in the video above), will likely face steep taxes and medical scrutiny for the cost-impact their lifestyle choices will have on the very nationalized health care system for which they advocate.
http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/20/obama-supporter-whats-wrong-with-a-little-bit-of-socialism/

Speedy
03-20-2010, 06:36 PM
Okay bitch, answer me this. What's wrong with freedom from socialism?

stsinner
03-20-2010, 07:29 PM
I love it... That grossly ignorant black bitch said, "It's mainly for African American people-the low-income people.... " and the oft-repeated, "Our parents and fore-parents..." Wow!! Her parents were on plantations!!?? That bitch is OLD!!!!!

She said that she doesn't think it's fair for the poor people to suffer and that the well-off should pay for them because they can afford it... That's pretty much Obama's brainwashing...

The said, "The administration before the Obama administration was just screwed up.." but I'll bet if you challenged her to list why, all she would mention is the war... I'll bet my house that she couldn't name the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury or probably even the Vice-President under President Bush...


And the retard that's with the fat white lady that needs the blood thinner injections looks like he is a tad deficient when he looks into the camera.. Why are Liberals so ugly?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNtQjuYF6OE

NJCardFan
03-20-2010, 10:02 PM
I want to thank this woman for proving my point about a majority of blacks being raging Marxists.

z06gal
03-20-2010, 10:44 PM
As bad as this may sound, they are the most politically ignorant people I have ever seen. The liberals have told them for years that they cannot make it on their own and that the gov't will take care of them. They totally believe this because most do not want to do anything. I am married to a family doc. They come into the ER with their new nikes, jewelry on every finger, around their neck, and through their nose but they FLAT OUT REFUSE to pay the $1 they are supposed to pay to see a doctor. On top of all that, they want samples if they need meds. Lol. It is the biggest farce I have ever seen. The overwhelming majority of females are overweight by alot. It is just unreal where we are and what the working class is saddled with. It's time we become the activists to take this country back. :mad::mad::mad:

PoliCon
03-20-2010, 10:54 PM
I want to thank this woman for proving my point about a majority of blacks being raging Marxists.

Is she forgetting how long Jews were slaves? Or how they have been persecuted over the last 2000 years? :rolleyes:

Swampfox
03-20-2010, 11:13 PM
The guy that said "what's wrong with a little bit of socialism?" should give everything he owns to the government or else he's a hypocrite.

PoliCon
03-20-2010, 11:14 PM
The guy that said "what's wrong with a little bit of socialism?" should give everything he owns to the government or else he's a hypocrite.

no no see - he needs to be the beneficiary not the donor. He has the right thoughts and ideas so people like him get to receive from those who want to work hard and make money.

Swampfox
03-20-2010, 11:19 PM
no no see - he needs to be the beneficiary not the donor. He has the right thoughts and ideas so people like him get to receive from those who want to work hard and make money.

Sounds great. There is a never-ending supply of "rich people" that will pay for all these programs while the rest of us spend our days eating Doritos and playing PS3, right?

NJCardFan
03-20-2010, 11:26 PM
Sounds great. There is a never-ending supply of "rich people" that will pay for all these programs while the rest of us spend our days eating Doritos and playing PS3, right?

I'm all for that. Guitar Hero anyone?

Swampfox
03-20-2010, 11:58 PM
I'm all for that. Guitar Hero anyone?

I haven't really played it all that much, but if I'm going to just suck at the gubmint's teet, I might as well learn!

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:37 AM
The guy that said "what's wrong with a little bit of socialism?" should give everything he owns to the government or else he's a hypocrite.

Socialism is Not what You Think it Is.

Swampfox
03-21-2010, 12:41 AM
Socialism is Not what You Think it Is. I know what it is. Don't tell me "what I know". If you want to make an argument, make it. If not, go waste your time with someone else.

namvet
03-21-2010, 09:24 AM
qJqvC08CviE

marv
03-21-2010, 10:21 AM
Socialism is Not what You Think it Is.
Wee Wee is right. Socialism is not what we think it is. It's a cancer. So what's wrong with a little cancer? Just look back on LBJ's "War on Poverty".

Hansel
03-21-2010, 10:25 AM
I want to thank this woman for proving my point about a majority of blacks being raging Marxists.

Like maladjusted teenagers, they are seeking leverage and a way to beat the system of working for a living.
So they are sitting ducks for pinkos who peddle the hollow promises of Marxism. After all it is FREE, ... isn't
it?

I may be too old to ever see it but I think that someday Bubba will have enough of it and will lock and load and go hunting skunks. I guess our country is too young to have had a good old fashioned purge but some of the Euro countries have. Sad to say, some of them went commie too and they have been sucking hind tit ever since.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Is the FDA socialism? Are safety regulations for our products socialism? Are financial regulation like the FDIC socialism? Is Social Security socialism? is the FAA socialism? How about the Federal Highway Association? Are public Police and Fire Departments socialism? How about the FCC? Should we just remove all of this?

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:23 AM
Is the FDA socialism? Are safety regulations for our products socialism? Are financial regulation like the FDIC socialism? Is Social Security socialism? is the FAA socialism? How about the Federal Highway Association? Are public Police and Fire Departments socialism? How about the FCC? Should we just remove all of this?
You have had this explained to you many times by several people. You and CMT are incapable of grasping it. You will know what socialism at it's worst is before your life is over. Go play with a video game or whatever. Your wasting peoples time, your not even entertaining.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:33 AM
You have had this explained to you many times by several people. You and CMT are incapable of grasping it. You will know what socialism at it's worst is before your life is over. Go play with a video game or whatever. Your wasting peoples time, your not even entertaining.

People keep using the term "Socialism" (I hear it dozens of times a day while listening to Beck, Rush, and Sean Hannity and watching Fox News and I see it here every time I post).

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:50 AM
People keep using the term "Socialism" (I hear it dozens of times a day while listening to Beck, Rush, and Sean Hannity and watching Fox News and I see it here every time I post).

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/3092/images/3092_MEDIUM.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:51 AM
Oh good point. I can see you've thought a good deal about this, I am outmatched.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:54 AM
Oh good point. I can see you've thought a good deal about this, I am outmatched.

http://img.timeinc.net/recipes/i/recipes/oh/08/chocolate-cake-oh-1727433-x.jpg

Speedy
03-21-2010, 11:54 AM
Oh good point. I can see you've thought a good deal about this, I am outmatched.

http://www.edopter.com/images_user/ideas/200805/uU5ACg

Speedy
03-21-2010, 11:56 AM
Oh good point. I can see you've thought a good deal about this, I am outmatched.

http://c.editingmyspace.com/files/en/rainbows/rainbow_004.jpg

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 12:11 PM
Is the FDA socialism? Are safety regulations for our products socialism? Are financial regulation like the FDIC socialism? Is Social Security socialism? is the FAA socialism? How about the Federal Highway Association? Are public Police and Fire Departments socialism? How about the FCC? Should we just remove all of this?

You have just proven yourself "STUPID"! You have NO CLUE.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:21 PM
You have just proven yourself "STUPID"! You have NO CLUE.

By all means, enlighten me. I am always looking to learn more I am quite a bookworm in fact so I'm happy to listen to your civics lesson.

marv
03-21-2010, 12:22 PM
Wee Wee is just a little kid still sucking his mama's tit. In my advanced seventy plus years, I've seen 'em come and go. Eventually, they end up admitting, "I didn't realize...".

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:22 PM
Is the FDA socialism? Are safety regulations for our products socialism? Are financial regulation like the FDIC socialism? Is Social Security socialism? is the FAA socialism? How about the Federal Highway Association? Are public Police and Fire Departments socialism? How about the FCC? Should we just remove all of this?

So just get to the point and explain why you think health care is something that should be collectively provide for by the government. I really can't wait to see your argument on how it's the same as citizens collectively supporting local police and fire departments with their taxes.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 12:27 PM
By all means, enlighten me. I am always looking to learn more I am quite a bookworm in fact so I'm happy to listen to your civics lesson.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w113/MeetaA/Food/StrawberryMirrorCake02.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:28 PM
So just get to the point and explain why you think health care is something that should be collectively provide for by the government. I really can't wait to see your argument on how it's the same as citizens collectively supporting local police and fire departments with their taxes.

It's better for the economy (for most people, not just for the top 1% who run the Insurance companies).

It's better for public health, that provides a stronger workforce which costs businesses less money from sick employees.

It's better for the debt because as of now a huge chunk of our spending is on health care and those costs are looking to rise unless we fix it.

It's just morally right, we the people are the ones who decide what are services given to everyone and what are commodities for the free market. There's no reason (other than the interests of those who benefit from the system now) to keep health care as a commodity.

We "could" privatize the police, we "could" privatize fire departments. We just accept that it's better as a public service. However I am sure that if they were private already and looking to turn public we would be flooded with arguments against that switch.

It's simply better for us as a society, we're the richest nation in the world, the only reason NOT to make health care more of a public service is to protect the wealth of the owners of the industries.

as part of the 95% of the American population, I support public options, public services.

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:30 PM
See, now that was easy, and now we don't have to go through a dance to pick your arguments apart.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:33 PM
The Tea Party ideology is riddled with contradictions (as is any ideology, to be fair) but the little kernal of Real at it's heart is simply Ruling-Class-Interests, policy that benefits the top 1-2% of the population at the expense of everyone else (more expense as you go down the social ladder)

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 12:35 PM
By all means, enlighten me. I am always looking to learn more I am quite a bookworm in fact so I'm happy to listen to your civics lesson.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed child, so I choose to respond with simple one word replies that you amy be able to understand.



IGNORANT

Speedy
03-21-2010, 12:35 PM
It's simply better for us as a society, we're the richest nation in the world, the only reason NOT to make health care more of a public service is to protect the wealth of the owners of the industries.

as part of the 95% of the American population, I support public options, public services.

What a surprise! For no other reason than you do not belong the top 5% you feel yoou deserve some of what the 5% earned.

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:36 PM
Your argument that it is "morally" right is hard to defend. If it's morally right to provide everyone health care that citizens do not have to pay for, couldn't it also be deemed morally right to provide housing, food or other necessities of life? And as for morality, is it moral to forceably take one person's earnings and give to another?

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:47 PM
Wu Wei, Wu Wei baby,

Most conservatives are not against the government running things that are too big for the states to handle, or that are needed as the only option for public safety. So why would we be against the FDA or the FAA? The interstate highway system is another example. But that is primarily funded through user fees or gas taxes. Which means that the people that benefit the most rightfully take on a majority of the burden for it's funding. Same way that police and fire are funded by real estate taxes on homeowners who benefit from the service they provide. You see the gist?

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:50 PM
What a surprise! For no other reason than you do not belong the top 5% you feel yoou deserve some of what the 5% earned.

I feel that people who benefit from a system (keeping in mind that ALL systems are imperfect, with disproportionate results) should invest more back into the system that got them there. It's why I am more than happy to pay my own taxes.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:50 PM
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed child, so I choose to respond with simple one word replies that you amy be able to understand.



IGNORANT

Whatever helps you sleep at night, brother.

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:54 PM
We are not against providing help and assistance to the poor and unfortunate. Charity is a sign of good moral character. The current bill wants to provide subsidy to families making $85,000 a year to help them purchase health insurance. Do you think that is necessary?

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:57 PM
Your argument that it is "morally" right is hard to defend. If it's morally right to provide everyone health care that citizens do not have to pay for, couldn't it also be deemed morally right to provide housing, food or other necessities of life?

Well those are certainly things which could be debated and I think it's important for debate to happen, even if all of the answers aren't absolutely sure. It's the only way a society develops. Reality is change and systems that cannot adapt to change fail and disintegrate.

At different times we'll have different answers in society but we should never forget that there are no absolutes here, nothing is inherently given we used to live in caves with an extremely short lifespan totally at the whim of nature.


And as for morality, is it moral to forceably take one person's earnings and give to another?

You mean Taxation? I don't consider Taxation wrong or immoral. Society has allowed us to move out of the caves but there are certain exchanges. We get certain benefits of emergency response, some health services, transportation, communication, and much more and in return we pay for it with taxes.

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 12:57 PM
Whatever helps you sleep at night, brother.

YOU ARE NOT MY BROTHER

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 01:02 PM
Well those are certainly things which could be debated and I think it's important for debate to happen, even if all of the answers aren't absolutely sure. It's the only way a society develops. Reality is change and systems that cannot adapt to change fail and disintegrate.

At different times we'll have different answers in society but we should never forget that there are no absolutes here, nothing is inherently given we used to live in caves with an extremely short lifespan totally at the whim of nature.



You mean Taxation? I don't consider Taxation wrong or immoral. Society has allowed us to move out of the caves but there are certain exchanges. We get certain benefits of emergency response, some health services, transportation, communication, and much more and in return we pay for it with taxes.
http://www.yourworstgift.com/clientimages/18dfaf9b9aeba71e9ff7e3dde55PO-FRUITCAKE.jpg

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:03 PM
See, you misread my point. I didn't say all taxation was immoral. I was talking about taxation where some people are taxed and others are not, and where that tax goes to giving something to others free, that others have to pay for.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:05 PM
Wu Wei, Wu Wei baby,

Most conservatives are not against the government running things that are too big for the states to handle, or that are needed as the only option for public safety. So why would we be against the FDA or the FAA?

But the distinctions are arbitrary. What's "necessary" and not is not inherent to those items, we decide them as a society. Many of the things deemed necessary are issues of public health, like the FDA and Sanitation Services, so why isn't (in this new era of medicine) health care not part of that? We already accept that ER services are necessary, there's no necessary rule as to why one thing is necessary and another isn't. However, the people with the most power and money and influence are surely going to flood the airwaves with arguments that are always the same "the system as it is benefits me, do not change it for any reason". Because HALF of the nation's wealth is held by 1% of the population, it should be obvious that they have a pretty big piece of the pie in terms of advertising and getting their message out. Most of what we hear is put out for the benefit of those few people.

If we the people decide it would be better (and from an overall health perspective, a cost perspective, and national debt perspective, it is) to have a public option, then we just DECIDED it is necessary, and it is.


The interstate highway system is another example. But that is primarily funded through user fees or gas taxes. Which means that the people that benefit the most rightfully take on a majority of the burden for it's funding. Same way that police and fire are funded by real estate taxes on homeowners who benefit from the service they provide. You see the gist?

People would still have to pay some for their health services, just not very much and not if they are very poor. Plus with the money this saves on government health costs it pretty much pays for itself.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:07 PM
See, you misread my point. I didn't say all taxation was immoral. I was talking about taxation where some people are taxed and others are not,

Not everyone is taxed equally, some don't even pay taxes, so you couldn't get an equal tax burdon.


and where that tax goes to giving something to others free, that others have to pay for.



You mean like state gambling paying for education?

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:11 PM
I agree that it is arbitrary what we feel the public sector should provide, at the expense of our tax dollars. That's why we have elections, debates and choose representatives that we agree with. But how many things that the government wastes money on, did we ever get a say in?

Can you show me where this bill is going to save the government on health care costs? That's going to be pretty hard to prove.

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:13 PM
Not everyone is taxed equally, some don't even pay taxes, so you couldn't get an equal tax burdon.



Exactly! Great point. That's why it's getting easier to sell policies to the American people, as a growing percentage of them pay less of the tax burden. So if you tell me I can get free health care, and not have to pay for it. Hell, I'm all over that.

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:15 PM
You mean like state gambling paying for education?

I'm not a big fan of state gambling or lotteries to provide funding. But you have to admit, no one forces anyone to go to a casino, it's totally voluntary.

rzoo4u2c
03-21-2010, 01:17 PM
Rotfl

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:19 PM
Can you show me where this bill is going to save the government on health care costs? That's going to be pretty hard to prove.

Not too hard.

"Congressional budget referees say Senate legislation that's now the foundation for President Barack Obama's health care plan would cut the federal deficit by $118 billion over 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office says the $875 billion, 10-year plan would provide coverage to 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. And it says the cost would be more than offset in savings from changes in Medicare and other programs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102042.html

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:20 PM
I'm not a big fan of state gambling or lotteries to provide funding. But you have to admit, no one forces anyone to go to a casino, it's totally voluntary.

I don't agree with the "my tax dollars shouldn't go to libraries because I buy all my own books" philosophy. Successful people benefit from the system as a whole, and they pay back into the system as a whole.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 01:22 PM
Not too hard.

"Congressional budget referees say Senate legislation that's now the foundation for President Barack Obama's health care plan would cut the federal deficit by $118 billion over 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office says the $875 billion, 10-year plan would provide coverage to 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. And it says the cost would be more than offset in savings from changes in Medicare and other programs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102042.html

http://www.jonco48.com/blog/fruitcake.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:22 PM
YOU ARE NOT MY BROTHER

http://img2.pict.com/bb/93/0e/3180102/0/youmad.jpg

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:35 PM
I don't agree with the "my tax dollars shouldn't go to libraries because I buy all my own books" philosophy. Successful people benefit from the system as a whole, and they pay back into the system as a whole.

That's not my philosophy and I never indicated it was. My personal belief is that libraries are beneficial and I do support them here in my city, even though I can buy my own books. I use them quite regularly. I'd even donate money directly to them or be willing to pay a small user fee if necessary. But that's something my fellow community members happen to agree on, and had a say in. From all indications, this health care bill isn't quite as popular and it looks like it's going to be rammed through by arm twisting and promises of special favors.

Lager
03-21-2010, 01:51 PM
Not too hard.

"Congressional budget referees say Senate legislation that's now the foundation for President Barack Obama's health care plan would cut the federal deficit by $118 billion over 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office says the $875 billion, 10-year plan would provide coverage to 31 million people who'd otherwise be uninsured. And it says the cost would be more than offset in savings from changes in Medicare and other programs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102042.html

The CBO was using promises of future actions by Congress to analyze the cost. One of the promises is that they are going to cut medicare reimbursements next year by 21 percent. Medicare cuts have been proposed several times in the last decade or so and it's never done. It's too unpopular especially with an aging population of baby boomers. The CBO estimate also excludes the so called "Doctor fix".

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 01:59 PM
Socialism is Not what You Think it Is.

Wow you're as arrogant as you are fucktard stupid. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 02:00 PM
Is the FDA socialism? Are safety regulations for our products socialism? Are financial regulation like the FDIC socialism? Is Social Security socialism? is the FAA socialism? How about the Federal Highway Association? Are public Police and Fire Departments socialism? How about the FCC? Should we just remove all of this?

At the federal level? FUCK YES!

marv
03-21-2010, 02:03 PM
People would still have to pay some for their health services, just not very much and not if they are very poor. Plus with the money this saves on government health costs it pretty much pays for itself.


http://users.mo-net.com/mcruzan/avatars/violin.gif

I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn....

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 02:03 PM
It's better for the economy (for most people, not just for the top 1% who run the Insurance companies).

It's better for public health, that provides a stronger workforce which costs businesses less money from sick employees.

It's better for the debt because as of now a huge chunk of our spending is on health care and those costs are looking to rise unless we fix it.

It's just morally right, we the people are the ones who decide what are services given to everyone and what are commodities for the free market. There's no reason (other than the interests of those who benefit from the system now) to keep health care as a commodity.

We "could" privatize the police, we "could" privatize fire departments. We just accept that it's better as a public service. However I am sure that if they were private already and looking to turn public we would be flooded with arguments against that switch.

It's simply better for us as a society, we're the richest nation in the world, the only reason NOT to make health care more of a public service is to protect the wealth of the owners of the industries.

as part of the 95% of the American population, I support public options, public services. Lots of claims - no supporting evidence - no facts to pack up what you are selling. Typical.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 02:06 PM
The Tea Party ideology is riddled with contradictions (as is any ideology, to be fair) but the little kernal of Real at it's heart is simply Ruling-Class-Interests, policy that benefits the top 1-2% of the population at the expense of everyone else (more expense as you go down the social ladder)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/3778478964_64e0332683.jpg

You fucking idiot marxists with you class warfare bullshit make me wanna puke. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 02:09 PM
We are not against providing help and assistance to the poor and unfortunate. Charity is a sign of good moral character. The current bill wants to provide subsidy to families making $85,000 a year to help them purchase health insurance. Do you think that is necessary?

charity is not the job of the government.

Lager
03-21-2010, 04:00 PM
charity is not the job of the government.

I would agree, for the most part. There are forms of what might be called charity, such as providing aid to countries that have disasters like Haiti or Chile, or even government providing a kind of social safety net in certain cases, that most conservatives have no issue with.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 07:21 PM
I would agree, for the most part. There are forms of what might be called charity, such as providing aid to countries that have disasters like Haiti or Chile, or even government providing a kind of social safety net in certain cases, that most conservatives have no issue with.

Those things would be better left to the private sector.