What can you say? If your church advocates for the poor, the hungry, the sick and people doing hardship you should B O O G I E. Wow.

Since when is practicing Christianity at odds with being in a CHRISTIAN church?

Good Lord.

Christian leaders are now calling for a boycott of his show. Good!!

"Christian leaders are now calling for a boycott of his show."

Well most of them are sanctimonious gasbags as well. Not quite as ridiculous as Beck, though those dresses Catholic priests wear are fairly preposterous.

"Today, Beck returned to the subject, insisting that the notion of social justice is "a perversion of the Gospel," and "not what Jesus would say." He wasn't kidding.

He went on to say that Americans should be skeptical of religious leaders who are "basing their religion on social justice," and explained his fear that concern for social justice is a problem "infecting all" faith traditions.

Beck's condemnations aren't going over well in some faith communities. The Rev. Jim Wallis, a prominent evangelical figure and president of the Sojourners network, argued yesterday, "I don't know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show."

Beck is strange, and certainly not a Gospel scholar. What he said flies in the face of what the Man Himself taught and lived. More of "I got mine".

Beck's just pissed cos Jesus was the ultimate liberal.

People should leave their churches if they actually do the kind of good works Jesus spent most of his life talking about?

Presumably to spend all their time supporting people who murder abortion doctors and trying to prevent gay folks from achieving legalized equal right?

Actually, wot people really need to do is stop paying attention to the ravings of the moronic, addle-pated hell-spawn named Glenn Beck.

/He still hasn't denied raping and murdering a girl in 1990, ya know!

Be Well.

/Once again entering the DRagon
stage left.

What's ironic is conservatives say "we don't want the government helping people" and putting their stock in "faith based initiatives". Now we have a conservative saying they shouldn't help people by any means - not even performing Christian acts via a Christian church.

Glenn Beck: Obama equals socialism equals communism!
Sheeple: You sure?
Glenn Beck: Shut up, drink your soma, buy some gold and repeat after me: Obama equals socialism equals communism!
Sheeple: Obama equals socialism equals communism!
Glenn Beck: Louder! I...can't...hear...you!
Sheeple: OBAMA EQUALS SOCIALISM EQUALS COMMUNISM!
Glenn Beck: That's better, much better. Next: Progressives bad!
Sheeple: Progressives bad!
Glenn Beck: WHAT?
Sheeple: PROGRESSIVES BAD!
Glenn Beck: Social justice bad!
Sheeple: SOCIAL JUSTICE BAD!
Glenn Beck: What did you say?
Sheeple: BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Oh the nerve of this guy.

Did Beck just jump the messiah?

One can only hope.

And with that statement there was a wide spread decrease in the number of nutters who were nutty before they did anything else, involved with religion.

The worlds and the church became a safer place.

#6. Exactly.

I thought LDS were busy trying to convince people they are Christians.

Mitt, your guy isn't making this easy for you.

Beck's laying the groundwork to start a tax exempt religion where he can dress like a Pope, blow smoke up the asses of the masses, and hand out suckers during the offering as an inside joke only he's in on.

"Shrine of The Poppycock"

Did anyone see the clips of Beck talking to Massa the other day? Oh man did he look disappointed at the end of the show when Massa didn't indict the Obama Administration as Beck hoped he would.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, a prominent evangelical figure and president of the Sojourners network, argued yesterday, "I don't know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money.... "

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Bingo.

He was speaking of the "social justice" gospel. Wallis is a tool of the left and long ago left the presence of God. They preach a froofy gospel - another gospel.

2 Timothy 3:13 - But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

What does the bible say about listening to women?
Oh, right....

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

So STFU Cranc.

Beck's discredited agenda is simply to cause infighting and divide on fraudulent ideologies by party lines. Anyone with half a brain can now see through his facade.

How many of his faithful listeners attend a church that would state 'social justice' or 'economic jusice' in their statement of beliefs? Probably none. The whole talking point was a complete waste of time. Beck is a complete fraud.

#15 nanc
Have you ever explained how your fickleness works? One day touting scripture, another warning that a charity is faith based.

Scanc belongs to one of those 100% Jesus-Free churches.

The Republican party is completely anti-Jesus in every single thing they stand for. Small wonder Beck is preaching this crap.

AU, you're getting hysterical. Is it that 'special' time of the month?

i think beck should keep the tag line at the end of the massa episode. Sorry America I Just Wasted an Hour of Your Time.

The Babbler will be along any second to defend his savior and one true god (well, second after Bush.)

AU, you're getting hysterical. Is it that 'special' time of the month?

#20 | Posted by vernon

It's a hard time to decipher what some of the posters are for or against---first the church is no good and then they are---I guess it all depends on their philosophy and the current thread.

In 1971, the 23-year-old Wallis and his Post-American colleagues changed the name of their publication to Sojourners, and in the mid-1970s they moved their base of operation from Chicago to Washington, DC, where Wallis has served as Sojourners' editor (and leader of the eponymous organization) ever since.

Advocating America's transformation into a socialist nation, Sojourners' "statement of faith" exhorted people to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class." According to Sojourners, "gospel faith transforms our economics, gives us the power to share our bread and resources, welcomes all to the table of God's provision, and provides a vision for social revolution."

As one of its first acts, Sojourners formed a commune in the Washington, DC neighborhood of Southern Columbia Heights, where members shared their finances and participated in various activist campaigns that centered on attacking U.S. foreign policy, denouncing American "imperialism," and extolling Marxist revolutionary movements in the Third World.

Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

One example means that any church or religious organization that wants to help others are bad. Beck is losing steam and just has to do something stupid and radical to get more attention.

I post this knowing that most of you will IGNORE this, simply because it is Glenn Beck explaining what he really said. I warn you, you might learn the truth. So, if you'd rather not, I would suggest you wait for the New York Times to write an article about it.

He said if your church advocates socalism run. Can't you people read? I don't even know why I ask that question,I know the answer.

Well most of them are sanctimonious gasbags as well. Not quite as ridiculous as Beck, though those dresses Catholic priests wear are fairly preposterous.

---------

i think priests are even worse, but beck certainly does move the bar towards nuts.

With the exception of Nancy, who often leaps in where angels fear to tread, the doctrinaire methodological haters seem absent from this discussion. Which is too bad, because I think Beck represents them and they represent Beck. Beck and his Faux clones embody the very worst evil humanity can work up. Beck seems to have placed himself on a mission to determine how far the envelope can be pushed. And if being your brother's keeper, giving any thought at all to the less fortunate = socialism = communism, his followers surely deserve to be - er - sheared. herm

I would not presume to speak for Beck but did he not compare social and economic "justice" code words to quasi-Marxists slogans? Marxism and Christianity are mixing seamlessly in the minds of such pseudo-operatives.

he also said that you shouldn't help the poor in any way. no more soup kitchen for those tea baggers.

Beck seems to have placed himself on a mission to determine how far the envelope can be pushed. And if being your brother's keeper, giving any thought at all to the less fortunate = socialism = communism, his followers surely deserve to be - er - sheared. herm.

#29 | Posted by herm

Clearly a statement from one who has never listened to Beck, or has placed himself on a mission to push the envelope against Beck.

Beck nothing against being your brother's keeper, or helping the less fortunate. He is against a government system that pretends to care for the less fortunate, and uses such pseudo care to rob you.

I guess as long as I give your money to some homeless person, I can rob you to do so? Should I do this, I'd be thrown in jail. When the government does it, it's being "our brothers' keeper!"

And the stupid who agree with this will always vote Democrat!

Better advice: If your pastor watches Glen Beck,
run for your life.

SAB,

You do you reconcile your apparent faith and your party of choice's 100% opposition to everything Jesus ever taught?

Are you that much of a contortionist that you are fine with this? Or are you one of those 100% Jesus-free 'christians'?

I fear that "Sabbatai" loses his creds by mewling over "a government system that PRETENDS to care for the less fortunate, and uses PSEUDO care to rob you." This is unadulterated tea baggery, bullshit of the first water from one who clearly stamps that first great reformer of two thousand years ago as a pinko commie marxist rat. herm

Judge not, Sabbatai, lest ye be judged.

i can't tell if beck is a really good actor, or a really bad one.

once again the pant pissing liberals take it out of context and he clarified it right away that if your church talks of "social justice" the way Rev Wrights does...then run.

777,

Nice of you to crawl out of Glen's bum long enough to enlighten us. Heckofa job but someone's gotta do it.

Duh. "Social Justice" is a euphemism for socialism. Of course, the left sees nothing wrong with this.

Ray was always first in line to rob the poor box.

We have really heard it all when the moral majority good ol' boy right wing Christians preach that Christ was a socialist and his teachings should be avoided by running as fast as you can from such a preposterous philosophy. Of course I knew this 40 years ago when I was old enough that I could no longer be forced to attend the Catholic's masses. I have always known the true meaning of what Christ taught and it wasn't about a church that supported wars just because they needed the money from the rich in their congregation, just so they could live the high life and at the same time brag about how much charity they offered to poor starving children in Uganda who are now all dying from aids and malaria.

Christians are the most hypocritical people on the planet. At least the Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad and pray five times a day. The Christians go to their social clubs for an hour a week and it's dog eat dog the rest of the week.

Ray was always first in line to rob the poor box.

FF and so true of many of these people who despise social justice. The thought of somebody actually helping their neighbor when times are tough is as abhorrent as maggot pie to these self righteous demigods.

Thanks, notmyrealname. That is the literal meaning, but the right trash has taken that to mean people that want something for nothing. They think people should earn the right to fair and equal treatment in America. They figure is you weren't born into money or posses a high IQ, you don't deserve to eat in the same restaurant or join the same social clubs as they do. To them, social justice is screwing the little guy because that's how you get to heaven.

"Duh. "Social Justice" is a euphemism for socialism. "

Actually, it's more of a euphemism for egalitarianism, which is the part of "classical liberalism" that right-libertarians are ignorant of, or pretend to be ignorant of.

Beck nothing against being your brother's keeper, or helping the less fortunate. He is against a government system that pretends to care for the less fortunate, and uses such pseudo care to rob you.
#32 | Posted by Sabbatai at 2010-03-12 03:08 PM

Why is it then, that since the government put in place social 'nets' to take care of the less fortunate we have less people dying in the streets of poverty? If we could rely on the church to take care of these people, why is it that the rates of destitute on the streets, elderyly dying of starvation is so much lower now than before the government programs?
When the only social net was the church, the poor were much worse off than they are now?

Would you like to see it go back to the good ole days, where the extremely poor and elderly were dying in the streets again?

Because if you were to look back in history at a time when the government didn't step up, that's what we had. People were left to die. I would like you to at least have an intelligent perspective on this matter before you make a decision.

What a laugher, going to the NYT to hear what Beck is saying? What would Jermiah Wright say? Of course you all give him the hypocritical pass. AND YOU KNOW IT!

Unless you listen to his whole program, you are taking him out of context...

However Obama contradicts himself often in the SAME SENTENCE.. He should be wagging his finger in a mirror.

For instance what has Obama said about insurance companies and pre-existing conditions in the past. HIS OWN WORDS?????? Before he beat them to death as evil for profit corporations. HIS WORDS are kind of funny, how often he contradicts himself....

Oh, and did he say OOOPPPSSSS when he finds out the non profit Blue Cross Blue Shileds charge the same rates as the for profit Ins companies????

He was speaking of the "social justice" gospel. Wallis is a tool of the left and long ago left the presence of God. They preach a froofy gospel - another gospel.

2 Timothy 3:13 - But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2 Thessalonians 2 speaks clearly about these end of days seducers and diluters of THE WORD.

#15 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-12 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nanc, how's your socialized medicine working out fer you???

Liberal Christian leaders are now calling for a boycott of his show. Good!!

#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

There. Fixed it for you.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a "Liberal" Christian.

I'm open to it though.

Real Christians are not affiliated with the government, nor do they care what is happening.

Actually, it's more of a euphemism for egalitarianism, which is the part of "classical liberalism" that right-libertarians are ignorant of, or pretend to be ignorant of.
#46 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah sure dummy. We're all socalists now.

"We're all socalists now."

Not you, Ray. I live in socal, you live in New Jersey. Remember, old timer?

#52 | Posted by Ray

That was a great retort, Ray, perhaps the greatest of all time.

I would not presume to speak for Beck but did he not compare social and economic "justice" code words to quasi-Marxists slogans? Marxism and Christianity are mixing seamlessly in the minds of such pseudo-operatives.

#30 | Posted by Liberty

I guess you have never listened to him. If you did, you would know your statement is way off base.

WTF is social justice to you? WTF is economic justice to you? To him it is socalism or progressiveism.

#15 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-12 11:55 AM

Please do try to stay on topic for Christ's sake...

So, let me get this straight: you think it is "Christ-like" to preach intolerance and exclusionism, pass restrictive laws based solely on your cult's backward narrow view of morality and cry like a martyr every time someone questions your beliefs, but helping the poor and less fortunate isn't an issue Jesus would've rallied around???

Really...

Please show me where scripturally it is against the Christian ideology to help the poor and down trodden...

Idolatry is a sin Hun', even if it's Glenn Beck you idolize...

"Actually, it's more of a euphemism for egalitarianism, which is the part of "classical liberalism" that right-libertarians are ignorant of, or pretend to be ignorant of." -Nullo

Come on....
One of "classical liberalisms" major tenents, upholds property rights which is the exact opposite of how one achieves "social justice".

If you can achieve "social justice" and still have property rights, let me know.

BTW the US government holds 25% of the land, and almost 40% of the land in the west. You can take my property once the government gives up its share.

Please show me where scripturally it is against the Christian ideology to help the poor and down trodden...

Idolatry is a sin Hun', even if it's Glenn Beck you idolize...

#56 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus

your ass, Who said that the only help to the poor is through socalistic programs. Churches have been helping the poor for a very long time. I guess YOU don't donate to charities being the socalist you are.

"To him it is socalism or progressiveism.

#55 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-03-12 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: WANTS TO LINK PROGRESSIVEISM TO SOCIALISM WORSE THAN LINKING IRAQ TO 9-11

"One of "classical liberalisms" major tenents, upholds property rights which is the exact opposite of how one achieves "social justice". "

Are Jefferson, Franklin, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, etc., "classical liberals"?

no, they're god-damned Commies.

Beck has never read the Bible. It shows. He would fit in well on the DR. The Christians are of course concerned with social justice, because Christ was.

Just as an aside---Libertarians who assert the morality of famine---Not Christians either.

Social Justice!

Are Jefferson, Franklin, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, etc., "classical liberals"?
#60 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The term has different meanings to different people at different times. To link classic liberals with Marx is loony.

Beck has never read the Bible. It shows. He would fit in well on the DR. The Christians are of course concerned with social justice, because Christ was.

Define your terms.

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-03-12 06:27 PM
***"your ass, Who said that the only help to the poor is through socalistic programs. Churches have been helping the poor for a very long time. I guess YOU don't donate to charities being the socalist you are"

First off, I wasn't referring to the "charity" of the church. I was referring to Christians who endorse what Beck said regarding churches preaching social justice...

Well Snipper, churches do some charity work, however the social need for charity is larger than what churches can handle, this is why we provide for the less fortunate through government programs. And, what possible basis would you have to assume that I don't donate to charity? Because I'm liberal? And, because "Conservatives" are so very charitable???

Would you like to compare Republican policy doctrine to that of Democrats in regards to the welfare of the poor? Labor? The uneducated? Those without health insurance? How about just the welfare of everyday American citizens???

Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter must hate how Glenn Beck is getting all the attention.

Having Sarah Palin on Bill or Hannity's show doesn't do too much because I believe she has yet to get out a soundbite that isn't getting tired by now. Plus you can't really tell what she is saying. Glenn really gives it to ya!

Since when is practicing Christianity at odds with being in a CHRISTIAN church?
Good Lord.

#1 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

You must be mistaking Christian with Unitarian churchs.

The Unitarians have been advocating social justice for decades.

The Unitarians have been advocating social justice for decades.

The problem with the phrase is that it's vague. It means whatever someone wants it to mean.

"The term has different meanings to different people at different times. To link classic liberals with Marx is loony."

I didn't say anything about Marx. That's your obsession. I accurately pointed out the egalitarian aspect of classical liberalism. Deal with it.

I didn't say anything about Marx. That's your obsession. I accurately pointed out the egalitarian aspect of classical liberalism. Deal with it.

All you did was muddle the language. Equal rights means the polar opposite of equal income. You're still a loon.

"It means whatever someone wants it to mean...."

Sometimes. But no more than how the rich continually agonize about the meaning of "rich", which few appear to admit what they are.

Social justice means attempting to give the guy next to you the same breaks in life you'd like to have.

"Define your terms...."

If someone is hungry, feed him. If someone is cold, give him a blanket. Prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.

If someone is hungry, feed him. If someone is cold, give him a blanket. Prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.

Should government be exempt?

Sometimes. But no more than how the rich continually agonize about the meaning of "rich", which few appear to admit what they are.

There are the honest rich and the dishonest rich.
Some dishonest rich steal illegally and some steal legally.

Government exists to care for it's people. It has no other function. If you want to limit the care to what can be afforded, that's a good debate.

Government exists to care for it's people. It has no other function. If you want to limit the care to what can be afforded, that's a good debate.

If only it was that way. The fact is government is screwing us over on a scale that gangster would envy.

Crap... I had a good post and it got flushed.

OK, here's the essence: I feel similar to Beck, at least in the sense that "justice" (along with "fairness") is a pejorative, guilt-bearing term of coercion designed to affect change vs the way Christ taught us to care of the poor.

Another slant on it is how the terms like "liberal" have evolved over time. Justice, in this thread's context, is a code word for forced income redistribution.

Suggested reading Glenn:

From proclaiming the preeminence of the merciful, just, and righteous God of Israel to asserting higher ethical and social responsibilities concerning war, women, slavery, marriage, family, and the poor and downtrodden, the teachings of the Old Testament spoke for a better humanity, stirring people to lead lives answerable to a supreme God.

...The Hebrew word tzedakah often translated as "charity" carries perhaps the most important moral value of the Old Testament. Its root actually means "justice" and "righteousness," denoting not only feelings of charity but also actions of goodness and justice.

"If someone is hungry, feed him. If someone is cold, give him a blanket. Prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.

#73 | Posted by Zed"

Fuck no! That's MY shit! Mine! MINE!!!

Ray

RE#6 Doc you crack me up!

YOU really nailed it that time!

thx... i needed that!

Beck:Gay Porn is not Subversive!!!

So Glenn Beck took some time out from watching his "Gay Porn" to admonish Christians for being deviants? Wow Glenn you can Suck as good as you Blow baby!!!

You're still a loon.

#71 | Posted by Ray

When you stop adopting every crackpot theory you find on the internet you can start calling other people loons, loon.

When you stop adopting every crackpot theory you find on the internet you can start calling other people loons, loon.
#83 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You earned it buddy. Anybody who believes in a social system founded on larceny is as loony as it gets.

#80 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

Spit it out boy. What are you trying to say?

The Unitarians have been advocating social justice for decades.

The problem with the phrase is that it's vague. It means whatever someone wants it to mean.

#69 | Posted by Ray

No it isn't.. Been a Unitarian for decades as well and there is nothing vague about fighting for social justice..

I thought the fundamental tenet of Christianity as espoused by Jesus in the New Testament is precisely a commitment to social justice. Including, perhaps, economic justice, what with Jesus driving out the money changers and all that.

SNOOFY

It is, but right wing Christians make a cottage industry finding wiggle room out of "As you do unto the least of these so you do unto Me" and too many of Christs's teachings to count.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a capitalist, and a Republican. Christ fought for the hard-working rich and had nothing but contempt for the lazy poor.

I've always lived my life by this quote from Jesus:

"It is harder for the poor, meek, inferior man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a fucking idiot to claim cable space the year after he learned to read other idiots in his forties."

and this one:

"Commies...beware of Commies"

and, of course, this Jesus classic:

"I made 23 mill last year, you stupid motherfuckers. Capitalism rocks. If you don't become as insipid as I am, you will in no way enter the kingdom of heaven!"

Damn..almost forgot this:

"fuck the poor. They deserve it"

Oh for fuck's sake. Your Magical Jesus said YOU must give to the poor. Your excess clothes, your food.

Luke 3:11 "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

Luke 14:12-14 (NIV) "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Matthew 19 :21

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Mat 6:19-21 (TEB) "Do not save riches for yourselves here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and robbers break in and steal. Instead, save riches for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and robbers cannot break in and steal. For your heart will always be where your riches are."

SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM BROUGHT TO YOU BY... JESUS:

Acts 2:44-45 (Phi) All the believers joined together and shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need.

END. OF. STORY.

"...I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them are going to come under the ropes in the next year,"

WTF?

I can't wait. One day this MORON is going to be hauled off his show in a straight jacket.

BIGGEST. YOUTUBE. VIEWED. EVER.

Beck, a Morman, needs to get the word out to Mitt supporters they don't want to do

Oh for fuck's sake. Ugly dumpling... your logic is skewed.

Your Magical Jesus said YOU must give to the poor. Your excess clothes, your food....

Sure did. He instructed me to give of my own free will. Not to have it STOLEN by gov't and given to who they want to help. Charity is giving YOUR money. Theft is giving someone else's money. Liberals never understand that.

SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM BROUGHT TO YOU BY... JESUS:

Not even close. He would have said "GIVE YOUR SHIT TO ROME" if he wanted charity to be a gov't function. He directed people to help people from their heart.

Acts 2:44-45 ...

You left out the portion above that...

And they gave forth their lots; and ...

NOTE the key work GAVE... not STOLE... not built a gov't agency to CONFISCATE and DIVIDE...

Charity is about giving. Gov't is about stealing.

Oh. You're only a Christian in name only too. NP

You're batting 2 for 2. You aren't a libertarian either. In name, maybe, but you obviously don't know anything about libertarian principles in light of your WalMart/Cancer Patient/Marijuana comments.

Or Christian principles either

Oh. You're only a Christian in name only too. NP

Wow, on the other thread you are a DOCTOR and a LAWYER and an expert on all things business, and here you are, thinking you are speaking for GOD.

FUCK, you must be one busy little shit-stain. I know, that whole "judge not" comment must have gone right over your head. But I'll try and lower the bar for you. My status as Christian is between ME and CHRIST. Not you. Your status as a Christian is between YOU and Christ.

You're batting 2 for 2. You aren't a libertarian either. In name, maybe, but you obviously don't know anything about libertarian principles in light of your WalMart/Cancer Patient/Marijuana comments.

#96 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

So far, you appear to have a lifetime batting average of 0.

No it isn't.. Been a Unitarian for decades as well and there is nothing vague about fighting for social justice..
www.uua.org
pretty clear cut if you actually research what they stand for and define..
#86 | POSTED BY LEGIO

Because there is no objective definition to the term, the same wording means different things to different people. To a capitalist and a socialist it has entirely opposite meanings.

Libertarians who assert the morality of famine are, at the very least, confused people. They may be evil. I may repeat this whenever anyone identifying themselves as a libertarian appears here, until at least one of them concedes that millions of persons starving to death is never a good thing.

"My status as a Christian is between me and Christ...."

I'd re-state that: Your salvation is a matter between you and Christ. Now, tell me your opinion of famines?

Libertarians who assert the morality of famine are, at the very least, confused people.

Libertarian morality of famine? That's dumb. Famine is rampant where there is NO liberty.

"Famine is rampant where there is NO liberty...."

Famine is rampant whenever people approve it. As are quite a few nasty things. My interest in libertarians is this: 1) They seem to approve of a great many nasty things----But much more interestingly---2) I've never gotten any firm idea they consider nasty things can happen to them.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Chinese proverb. The International Thesaurus of Quotations, ed. Rhoda Thomas Tripp, p. 76, no. 3 (1970).

Sounds like the ancient Chinese understood the dangers of socialism.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll be drunk in his boat all afternoon."

Give a man a match and he will be warm for a few seconds.

Set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Oh the shock! What would Jermiah Wright say?

Glenn beck is a Neo-Nazi in disguise.

Every Teabagger is not a Neo-Nazi, but ALL Neo_nazis are in the TeaParty.

Think about it....

I guess Beck is for social injustice. Gosh, what a surprise.

Beck is for his inflated paycheck and he projects his deeply flawed character on the rest of humanity. That's his core in a nutshell, where it would easily fit.

Libertarians who assert the morality of famine are, at the very least, confused people. They may be evil. I may repeat this whenever anyone identifying themselves as a libertarian appears here, until at least one of them concedes that millions of persons starving to death is never a good thing.

#101 | Posted by Zed

People who make arguments like that are either wildly confused or purposely misleading. It is the equal of the old 'are you still beating your wife'. It presupposes guild.

Now, tell me your opinion of famines?

#102 | Posted by Zed

Glad to. As a Christian, if I see my fellow man in trouble, I believe I should help. As such, I donate my time and energy and, yes, my own money, to such organizations that help the poor and the needy.

As a libertarian, I don't think govt theft is a valid answer, and that the whores in DC will use any crisis to accumulate power.

So tell me you opinion of how the theft is different when carried out by the crack head down the street as opposed to the govt agency buying the same drugs for your mom.

1LIB

Why didn't you vote libertarian in 2000 and 2004?

They had a candidate on the ballot...

Here's the Libertarian Party platform (what a true 'libertarian' stands for)

AU,

If I had, would the election have changed? No. I work at the local level and in the primaries. You know, grass roots stuff.

Unlike some who must march in lock step with a party... libertarians generally believe in individual rights.

As a libertarian, I don't think govt theft is a valid answer, and that the whores in DC will use any crisis to accumulate power.

#112 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 03:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't understand your logic. It would seem that you are happy to help the poor, and you understand that many others are not so happy helping the poor. With government help, the people not so generous as you are helping the poor much more than they were helped without government help. It wouldn't cost you any more money since you were giving your money anyway. You are still giving the same amount to help the poor, and should enjoy the fact that others are helping the poor who otherwise would not be helping at all. Is helping the poor what is most important to you, or is how the money gets there the most important thing to you? It seems to me that if helping the poor is the most important thing, then you would rejoice in so much help going to the poor. Otherwise it seems that helping the poor is secondary to you, and you only give to glorify yourself, not help the poor.

#114 | Posted by 1libertarian

One would assume "libertarians" would support the libertarian movement by VOTING for libertarian candidates. Otherwise, all they're doing is paying lip service to a movement they aren't willing to support where the rubber meets the road.
I linked their platform above.

It sure would seem that a cancer patient should be allowed - with a doctor's prescription - to take what allows him to hold down food. Especially according to Libertarian Party principles.

Others have raised the issue that it stays in your system for weeks. Who's to say he was ever 'high' at work? And, as I pointed out, people with cancer or in extreme pain don't react to pain meds the same way 'recreational' users do.

Cancer patients should not be treated like recreational drug users. They don't respond to them in the same way, and need them for pain relief - or in this case to hold down food.

Someone else posed this question:

Would you rather he was on public assistance than working? You have to admire someone who'd go into work with cancer. Right?

AU,

If I had, would the election have changed? No. I work at the local level and in the primaries. You know, grass roots stuff.

Unlike some who must march in lock step with a party... libertarians generally believe in individual rights.

Posted by 1libertarian

The GOP, who you vote for, are antithetical to 'personal freedom' at the most, well, personal level.

The Libertarian platform says a woman's choice is hers to make, that gays should have the same rights to marry as anyone else, that personal choices should be left to the individual - all principles the GOP is 180 in opposition to.

You're voting against your own self declared principles (in calling yourself a "Libertarian"), and certainly not supporting your own cause (Libertarianism) by voting GOP.

libertarians generally believe in individual rights.

#114 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-14 04:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

What individual rights do libertarians believe in that dems and cons do not?

The Libertarian platform says a woman's choice is hers to make,

One of the few areas I disagree with. It is her choice on who to have sex with, whether or not to have sex, to use some type of birth control, etc. However, once a new living entity has been created, it has its own set of rights. Her right to no stretch marks should not end another human beings rights to life.

that gays should have the same rights to marry as anyone else,

Disagree with the way it is being processed. I agree you should be able to fuck anything your little pecker can fit in, as long as all parties agree to it. DO NOT AGREE that you have to mangle the term marriage (not all flowers are called roses, but they can still be flowers). Also do not agree that there should be any federal benefits to being married. Nothing to extend to gays couples, to groups of 3 or 4 or 44. No tax breaks, no SS survivors, no federal goodies at all.

that personal choices should be left to the individual - all principles the GOP is 180 in opposition to.

True. Which is why I left the repubs. Now do you understand? When I couldn't get the repubs to move in a direction that I thought was better, I left them.

You're voting against your own self declared principles (in calling yourself a "Libertarian"), and certainly not supporting your own cause (Libertarianism) by voting GOP.

#117 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Again, you appear to be unconnected to reality. The choice is really repub or dem. Any other vote is the equivelent of staying home. At the local level, and at the level of party platforms, my voice might make a small difference. I have put effort into helping to get those candidates that most closely match my views elected.

What individual rights do libertarians believe in that dems and cons do not?

Where I differ from repubs is on things like drugs, which I have no use for but don't care what you want to do. Same for sexual orientation. Don't care. Being the worlds policeman is a pain in the butt, as well. Wouldn't send money to countries that hate us, hoping that they will hate us a little less.

Where I differ from Libs... almost everywhere. Govt is the solution to all problems. 40% tax rate is to low. If there are 1500 programs to help the poor, that isn't enough. I want to own a gun, which has been made almost impossible in some areas. Union thuggery. Distorting our history to always paint America in a bad light. Presidential apologies tours. State ran schools, state ran religion right out of the doors, etc etc etc.

Another Out of Context thread.

One would never think such things possible.

Where I differ from Libs... almost everywhere. Govt is the solution to all problems. 40% tax rate is to low. If there are 1500 programs to help the poor, that isn't enough. I want to own a gun, which has been made almost impossible in some areas. Union thuggery. Distorting our history to always paint America in a bad light. Presidential apologies tours. State ran schools, state ran religion right out of the doors, etc etc etc.

#119 | Posted by 1libertarian

Another pseudo libertarian trying to remake what libertarianism really stands for.

Libertarians in my definition are anarchist with money.

You are a republican masquerading as a libertarian because the repubs won't do what you want.

If only it was that way. The fact is government is screwing us over on a scale that gangster would envy.

#76 | Posted by Ray

god i hate the highway system, high speed internet and the navy and satellite communication..just to name a few out of hundreds.

If only it was that way. The fact is government is screwing us over on a scale that gangster would envy.

#76 | Posted by Ray

god i hate the highway system, high speed internet and the navy and satellite communication..just to name a few out of hundreds.

#122 | Posted by Legio

Ray didn't mean to hurt the government's feelings...

But, I hate this highway system too. The Interstate system was a dumb and expensive idea. It was great in the 60's, but I think by now, these highways would have been built and maintained either by the states or by private organizations building toll roads. If you look back to the 50's when they were discussing it, they were talking about building rail systems instead with Federal money, but we love our cars, don't we. I think that would have been a dumb idead too to spend federal money, but it would have been a better result now, using less fuel.

The Interstate system killed the countryside and gave way to corporatism. The Interstate system killed the rail system and gave way to trucking instead.

"Another pseudo libertarian trying to remake what libertarianism really stands for."

Definitely. This idiot needs a tutorial on the origin of the word "libertarian".

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word "libertarian" by anarchists.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms "libertarian", "libertarian socialist" and "libertarian communist" as equivalent to "anarchist" and, similarly, "libertarian socialism" or "libertarian communism" as an alternative for "anarchism." This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term "libertarian" has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of "free-market" capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term "libertarian" for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing "libertarians" complaining that we genuine libertarians have "stolen" their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, "libertarian" was "a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians."

god i hate the highway system, high speed internet and the navy and satellite communication..just to name a few out of hundreds.

#122 | Posted by Legio

One of these things is not like the other...

The Navy? Why did you mention the navy? Is it because it's 3 times the size it needs to be to defend the US?

Yes, the government "invented" the Internets. I think it was Al Gore, right?

Again, another idea that would have created itself anyway. Except this one was not funded by the "Government" and can't be controlled, yet.

Just an FYI, the "Internets" was "invented" by a private concern and the service was sold to the Federal Government. The Government was a client, not the inventor.

#124 | Posted by nullifidian

This is why I stay away from that party. The Republican system that we have in place is good and will work if we choose to follow the Constitution.

Where I differ from Libs... almost everywhere. Govt is the solution to all problems.

#119 | Posted by 1libertarian

I do too. However, I think it's more than that. The Fed Government doesn't know when to stop. It's really great to have the government step in and start something as long as there is a method to hand it over to the public and I don't mean handing it over to a large corporation that acts on the government's behalf. All I'm saying is that the evils of bureaucracy can never be avoided and will cause good intensions to fail. It always happens. That's why we say that everything that the Fed touches, fails.

For example, social security. It was a great idea at the time, but at the time of its creation, it was meant to support people who got to retirement age and had nothing. Most people saved for their retirement in other ways. Now they "depend" on social security and most people have nothing else. It's because they believe that the government is going to take care of them. This is the States' responsibility according to the Consitution. Oh, well. Just another really good idea gone horribly wrong.

Let's not talk about the Medicare and Medicaid systems, ok?

Do you realize that most people think that the money is provided by the government and many play on this ignorance....

Another pseudo libertarian trying to remake what libertarianism really stands for.

Libertarians in my definition are anarchist with money.

You are a republican masquerading as a libertarian because the repubs won't do what you want.

#121 | Posted by Legio

how lame. Didn't address any issues, just attacked me as not being a 'pure' libertarian. Forgetting, convienently, that part of being a libertarian is believing in independant thinking. Probably hard to comprehend by someone who is required to march in lock-step (or is it goose-step?)

As for anarchist, hardly. I believe we need SOME govt, just not the suffocating amount we have. Why libs can't understand that too much is too much, I don't know. Hey, next time you are cold, set yourself on fire. If 72 degrees is good, 720 should be EXTRA good from a lib point of view.

Instead of telling me what you think I am not, why don't you tell me what you stand for. You know, this is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. So far, you haven't shown any. Why is that?

Definitely. This idiot needs a tutorial on the origin of the word "libertarian".

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word "libertarian" by anarchists...

Unfortunately, in the United States the term "libertarian" has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of "free-market" capitalism... in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there.

nullifidian

Poor null, is the problem you can't read or can't comprehend? Times change, and the definition of words change. I will take the post 70's American definition.

Hey, if you guys can usurp the terms gay and marriage, why can't we on the right side of the spectrum steal a term for ourselves?

#129 | Posted by 1libertarian

1libertarian,

I'm not picking a fight, but do you really believe what the libertarians are promoting?

I believe in and support the local systems of government. I gladly pay property and sales taxes and support zoning and the other things that they do, like libraries! This is a really great idea that works.

Anyway, I'm with you about the Federal Government. It's out of control. It's insane!

My question is, are you really a libertarian? I know (of) a few. They live in the mountains, out of the city limits.

"It's because they believe that the government is going to take care of them."

No they don't, they think that the system which we set up decades ago, which has never failed to be able to pay benefits, will continue with the minor adjustments necessary to make it solvent. All these "small government" fools make ridiculous statements about Social Security which has been the lendor not the lendee to the federal government. It is the other government tax revenues which fall far short of their rightful amounts which would actually pay the bills of the government. It has been this way since you know who with a short moment of clarity under Clinton and then right back to insanity under Bush and the Rethugs. Now the Republicans are gearing up, creating a whole "movement" because they know the Bush tax cuts are going to expire soon and that is really the main bone of contention between the two parties. When you boil it down it comes down to taxes and fiscal responsibility which Republicans ALWAYS claim to be but never really are when they get power.

When you boil it down it comes down to taxes and fiscal responsibility which Republicans ALWAYS claim to be but never really are when they get power.

Amen!

And then we have idiots like Glenn Beck who don't think Christians should do Christian things that, you know, Christ said to do.

#131 | Posted by danni

Danni,

As usual, you completely missed the point.

The point is that SS, Medicare, Medicaid give most people the illusion that the government is going t otake care of them. They give up on self reliance because they think that improvements in the system will be there to fix their irresponsibilities of today. My dad smoked and ate junkfood (didn't drink), didn't save for the future and always told me that he could depend on SS and Medicare to be there and worse yet, thought that modern medicine would be there to fix any bad habits he had. He died young from his lifestyle.

Unfortunately, most Americans share his beliefs.

I don't share his beliefs.

When you boil it down it comes down to taxes and fiscal responsibility which Republicans ALWAYS claim to be but never really are when they get power.

#131 | Posted by danni

Uh...

Who balanced the budget with a surplus in the 90's?

Don't get it wrong.

Danni,

Again, you miss the point and go straight to partisan politics.

"Well, the Republicans did it too!"

I know the Neocon Republican Presidents (and yes, Reagan is a neocon) went against their constiuency and spent out of control.

But, the next 3 or 4 elections will be like the elections in the early 90's where Republicans promised to control spending and they did!

We should all hope it becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Who balanced the budget with a surplus in the 90's?

Bill Clinton

As soon as the GOP had the WH too they went crazy and spent like drunken sailors

Do anti-government types believe that 70-90 year old Americans, today, have saved enough money to retire without "government aid"?

Morons...

I recall the uproar by seniors when the Bush administration wanted to privatize SS.

Where were the teabaggers then?

Skewed KKK Teabaggers easily forget that battle when convenient.

Who balanced the budget with a surplus in the 90's?

Bill Clinton

As soon as the GOP had the WH too they went crazy and spent like drunken sailors

#136 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Do you have a link showing that Bill Clinton was a member of Congress? Nice try, dude.

And then you use a deflection which tells me that you really believe that a Republican-led Congress really did balance the budget for a few years and provided a surplus on top of that.

SO.....

I believe Danni that Republicans in the WH spend out of Control.

Also, Democrats in Congress also spend out of control.

The only formula that works, here, is to have non-neocon Conservatives in Congress.

*gasp* is that what's going to happen come the next 3 or 4 elections?

#137 | Posted by ArmyVet

ArmyVet, I think you might be confused.

What do you mean by anti-government? Did you mean "limited government"?

How much do you know about the Tea Party movement?

You can't be one of those morons who get their news from Obermann, Maddow and Matthews and then criticize people for watching Glenn Beck, are you?

Skewed KKK Teabaggers easily forget that battle when convenient.

#137 | Posted by ArmyVet

Can you show me a KKK Teabagger?

LOL!!!

Do you even have a clue?

ArmyVet,

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal responsibility.

Do you pay taxes? Are you an American citizen? Do you have children?

Do you care if we spend money we don't have, driving up the debt to the point we are backrupt?

Oh Eddie, you poor deluded (and quite slow) sap.

Haven't you gotten the memo yet? The 'Tea Party' was just a temporary ploy by some billionaire neocons to rile up the especially stupid to fight Democratic goals that upset the neocons.

Now that the election season is upon us, the 'Tea Party' has been disbanded because said neocons are afraid the poor deluded teabaggers might actually get some candidates on the ballot. They can't risk splitting the wingnut vote, now can they?

I'm not picking a fight, but do you really believe what the libertarians are promoting?

Not every item... but I have read the "official" platform for every party I could find, and libertarian is the closest. It misses a few, but one of the things I liked about libertarian principals was the idea that you didn't have to march in lock-step with a party platform. The emphasis on personal choice and personal responsibility. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

I believe in and support the local systems of government...

I don't like a lot of things they do at the city / state level either, but a good percentage is federal mandates that are forced on the states.

Eddie,
Where were you during the Bush Era? Did fiscal responsibility only come around once you knew that a black man would be elected, extending contributions to those other than corporations, who, by the way, bankrupted the economy?

How about the 8 years of Bush, who failed to secure the borders, allowing illegal immigrants to bankrupt the healthcare system? Where were you then?

How about the Iraq war that cost me 2+ trillion dollars of tax money, yet failed to protect anyone other than McDonnell Douglas, Halliburton and Lockheed Martin? Where were you then?

Your ugly, hatred filled, White Neo-Nazi Teabag bowel movement is a joke, as is your beloved Goebbels-Beck.

The Teabagger Party is nothing more than a bumper sticker on the ass of the disgruntled Republican whiner and loser party.

Oh Eddie, you poor deluded (and quite slow) sap.

Haven't you gotten the memo yet? The 'Tea Party' was just a temporary ploy by some billionaire neocons to rile up the especially stupid to fight Democratic goals that upset the neocons.

#142 | Posted by axe

LOL!!!

Funny.

I'm not sure which is more funny, you or the picture...

Eddie,
Where were you during the Bush Era?
#144 | Posted by ArmyVet

supporting Ron Paul. Before him, I was a floating independent just like millions of others.

I can't believe that you don't know this.

Are you willfully ignorant or just simply wanting to ditch the Constitution for something more European?

The Teabagger Party is nothing more than a bumper sticker on the ass of the disgruntled Republican whiner and loser party.

#144 | Posted by ArmyVet

Who will be replacing seats in Congress over the next 3-4 elections.

You won't get it until after it happens.

... river in Egypt.

Read www.lp.org
#143 | Posted by 1libertarian

This document just scratches the surface and is not specific as I'd like, but I agree with most. I know the Libertarian stance on Federal taxes--it's basically what's written in the Consitution, but I'd like to know what they propose for taxes at the state and local level. In this document, they seem to be against property taxes but the section on property is too vague to get to that level.

If not property taxes, then what?

#131 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-14 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please explain to me how you think business can be taxed.

Reality is that taxes are passed on to the consumer in the price of the goods or services they provide.

But please do explain to me how it is that business could ever be taxed without the consumer ultimately paying the tax.

I look forward to your explanation.

I look forward to your explanation.

#149 | Posted by porkchop

Me too...

Read www.lp.org and tell me if you don't agree with most of them, in principle. How they would be carried out is still to be determined.

Exactly 1Lib. Your entire political philosophy is a bunch of nice words on paper and you have zero fucking clue how to actually govern anything.

You're a joke, and so is your party. Weren't you schmucks supposed to have all moved to Delaware or Vermont by now so you'd get enough votes to actually put your nebulous, feel-good ideas into action? I'll believe libertarianism actually amounts to something when you actually do something.

As it stands, you are, to quote Hillary Clinton, all hat and no cattle.

But please do explain to me how it is that business could ever be taxed without the consumer ultimately paying the tax.

Businesses could take less profit and use that revenue to pay more taxes.

Wow, that was hard. Any more Einstein-level questions you simpletons need answered?

This document just scratches the surface and is not specific as I'd like, but I agree with most.

So far, we are in agreement. I agree with most, at a high level.

I know the Libertarian stance on Federal taxes--it's basically what's written in the Consitution, but I'd like to know what they propose for taxes at the state and local level.

That is the part that confuses a lot of people. This being MY take on things, and I do not claim to speak for every libertarian. Each state would find what it thinks works best. Now, some states have income taxes. Some have sales taxes. Some tax tourist related items (hotels and such) to cover a good chunk of the taxes. We do not require a 1 size fits all approach.

In this document, they seem to be against property taxes but the section on property is too vague to get to that level.

If not property taxes, then what?

#148 | Posted by Eddie

Personally, I prefer sales taxes. Only business have to collect it, they collect from everyone who makes a purchase. It catches the people who are currently 'off the grid', etc. Businesses and private corps pay the same amount on what is consumed (althought the cost is always passed to the consumer, ultimately). Foreign companies that ship products to the US pay sales taxes. US companies that ship products out of the US would NOT pay sales taxes to the US (leveling the playing field with countries like Japan that refund taxes for cars shipped to the US).

Your entire political philosophy is a bunch of nice words on paper and you have zero fucking clue how to actually govern anything.

Looking at the job done by the dems and repubs, they don't have a fucking clue either.

You're a joke, and so is your party.

So were the original tea party members, so were the original founding fathers.

Weren't you schmucks supposed to have all moved to Delaware or Vermont by now so you'd get enough votes to actually put your nebulous, feel-good ideas into action?

Guess I didn't get the official word from on HIGH... oh, wait, that the libs that get talking points. Never mind.

I'll believe libertarianism actually amounts to something when you actually do something.

I have a similar feeling about your party... I'll believe it amounts to something when it STOPS doing everything that is unconstitutional.

#151 | Posted by snoofy

You can search the web for a quote. Color me bored. I would be much more impressed if you actually posted the points where you agree or disagree with them.

I would be much more impressed if you actually posted the points where you agree or disagree with them.

Theories are just that, theories. Do something and I'll tell you if I agree with what you've done.

But, I'll play your game. One thing I've heard is that libertarians would vastly reduce the government outlay of goods and services. Roads, for instance, would be privately funded and maintained, and travelers would pay a toll. This is such an incredibly unwieldy and inefficient idea that I'm going to call it stupid beyond imagination.

I do agree with Libertarians, though, that drugs should be legalized. But I also think the more harmful and dangerous drugs should be heavily regulated as they are in pharmacies or liquor stores (in those states that have state-run liquor stores).

This being MY take on things, and I do not claim to speak for every libertarian.

If you were to walk up to a life long libertarian he'd give you a disdainful look for not knowing the first thing about actual libertarianism, ask why you don't support the Libertarian Party (2 time Bush voter you), and ask why you're hijacking their good name as a Tea Partier.

Then he'd tell you to get lost.

#151 | Posted by snoofy

So you are ok with the alternatives? Democrat or Republican?

Sorry, but your response can't hold water.

Are you willing to say that you are ok with the out of control spending from both parties?

Do you own property? Own a business? Have a job in a small business?

Are you ready to give up your present home for a smaller home? Close down your business in a wave of corporatism? Give up your job for a temp job in a corporation or a government job that pays you enough to make rent?

just checking...

Anyone who says that the leaders in the Democrat and Republican parties are actually looking out for their interests are willing to drink the koolaide.

So sad.

But please do explain to me how it is that business could ever be taxed without the consumer ultimately paying the tax.

Businesses could take less profit and use that revenue to pay more taxes.

Wow, that was hard. Any more Einstein-level questions you simpletons need answered?

#152 | Posted by snoofy

How fucking stupid are you, snoofy?

I was taking you seriously until I read this. You have no clue about how business works so you are probably one of those idiots who say that capitalism is pure evil.

You are afraid of what you don't understand.

Let me dumb it down for you Snoofy...

one of 2 things are going to happen when you raise taxes or government regulation on small business. Either prices go up or the business quits. Can you show me a business that's doing so well right now that neither of these will happen?

Any questions?

Everyone knows that Jesus was a capitalist.

Eddie, you should be glad there's an administration in the WH who've cut small business taxes more than the previous 10 years.

- Expedited write downs for capitol investments
- Waiver of employer SS contributions
- Tax Credits for purchases of new equipment
- Tax Credits for new hires

AU,

isn't your 4th bullet the same as your 2nd bullet?

I'm not aware of 1 and 3.

Eddie, you should be glad there's an administration in the WH who've cut small business taxes more than the previous 10 years.

- Expedited write downs for capitol investments
- Waiver of employer SS contributions
- Tax Credits for purchases of new equipment
- Tax Credits for new hires

#161 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Really?

Have these things happened yet?

#162 | Posted by eberly

That's because all they are is hot air.

This is sad!

Everyone knows that Jesus was a capitalist.

#160 | Posted by BetelG

Jesus was not of the world and was depending on what you believe.

So what does this sarcasm even mean?

Yes, Jesus is a capitalist and he isn't. He is a socialist and he's not. A communist....

You still don't get it.

Anyone who says that the leaders in the Democrat and Republican parties are actually looking out for their interests are willing to drink the koolaide.

The Democrats made my COBRA affordable with the ARRA, which reduced my health insurance premiums by 65%.

It's worth $325 a month to me. It blows the Republicans couple hundred bucks of tax refunds a year out of the water.

Just a real-world example of which party has done more for my pocketbook.

By the way I only became a Democrat so I could rail against Hillary Clinton at my precinct's caucus. I asked my precinct captain what was required to participate and he said all I had to do to join the party was say "I'm a Democrat." So I did.

The caucus was interesting, it was like 41-7 in favor of Obama (I was the one tallying results). 100% of the Clinton supporters were college-aged women. But even with that huge Obama majority, one of our precinct's four delegates still went to Clinton. Now, I don't know how other parties do it, but this level of respect and recognition for the minority opinion made me like the way the Democrats run their show.