The Democraps are Class Warfare Socialists

Do democrats hate the rich? No, they love them. Democrats aren't dummies, they know where most of the tax dollars they love to spend come from.

Are they Socialists? Most (not all) of the active members have been swayed to that level of thinking. It wasn't always that way. In the 1970's, when the youth of America stormed the Democratic party in support of McGovern and in rebuking the Viet Nam War, the door to Socialism was opened wide. Previous attempts by Socialists had been successfully thwarted by moderate Democrats. Although McGovern lost his bid for President, the Democratic Platform now contained a decidedly Socialist tone. The rest is history. Moderate Democrats, totally disheartened by the 'new' democratic party, left in mass. Many switched and became known as the Reagan Democrats.

The Clintons are Socialists, Dean is. Kerry less so, although he's not a moderate either. Lieberman is definitely a moderate.

Despite what everyone believes, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are two of a kind. The only thing that separates them is their own misconception of what the other side really represents.

The issue then is not between Democrats and Republicans, its between Socialists and Capitalists.

A pure capitalists gives back, but not to the point of making the recipient dependent.

Soooo, ask yourself, do you want a Socialist country or a Capitalists country?
 
If you don't understand why we have socialism read the thread on Howard Buffet - the father of Warren Buffet.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27791&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

50. What is the formula that determines the maximum amount of money available to business and consumers?

Expressed mathematically this is a simple formula A × B = C where: A = Amount of bank reserves; B = Number of dollar deposits member banks may create per dollar of bank reserves; and C = Total bank deposits.

51. Can the Federal Reserve authorities change the money supply formula?

Yes. They can change either or both parts of the formula at any time, and they frequently do change one or both parts. There are certain limits set by the Federal Reserve Act to the changes the authorities can make. But these limits are extremely wide.

52. Does it make any difference which part of the formula the authorities change when they wish to increase the money supply?

Yes. Although the effect on the money supply of changing either part of the formula may be the same, the total economic effects differ depending on which part of the formula is changed. For example, when the Federal Reserve lowers reserve requirements, all of the new money is created by the commercial banks through their lending and investing activity. This obviates the necessity of transferring Government securities from private to public hands. On the other hand, when the Federal Reserve increases reserves by, say, purchasing U. S. Government securities, the interest income on these securities goes to the Federal Reserve System. Since the Federal Reserve turns over to the U. S. Treasury most of its earnings, the net effect of increasing the money supply by increasing reserves is to favor the private banking system. <font color=RED>So, when the Federal Reserve officials decide to increase the money supply, whether they favor the U. S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference—in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay.</FONT>


 
How can they justify huge mountain of debts and bonds emission without a socialist governement for so called social wealthfare on one hand - which is rather let's exploit the poors as electorate classes - and on the other hand a pseudo-"republican" government for huge spending in "defense". I'm republican but it doesn't prevent me to be objective and see the lie from what is supposed to be a "republican" camp when it is rather a facist camp and remember that facism historically is the contraction of nationalism and SOCIALISM: so why is it so astonishing that we have two false choices today ?. They just have to alternate every two elections to make people believe they have choice whereas the candidates will just apply one facette or the other of the same program of debts and taxation.

Quote from harrytrader:

If you don't understand why we have socialism read the thread on Howard Buffet - the father of Warren Buffet.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27791&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

50. What is the formula that determines the maximum amount of money available to business and consumers?

Expressed mathematically this is a simple formula A × B = C where: A = Amount of bank reserves; B = Number of dollar deposits member banks may create per dollar of bank reserves; and C = Total bank deposits.

51. Can the Federal Reserve authorities change the money supply formula?

Yes. They can change either or both parts of the formula at any time, and they frequently do change one or both parts. There are certain limits set by the Federal Reserve Act to the changes the authorities can make. But these limits are extremely wide.

52. Does it make any difference which part of the formula the authorities change when they wish to increase the money supply?

Yes. Although the effect on the money supply of changing either part of the formula may be the same, the total economic effects differ depending on which part of the formula is changed. For example, when the Federal Reserve lowers reserve requirements, all of the new money is created by the commercial banks through their lending and investing activity. This obviates the necessity of transferring Government securities from private to public hands. On the other hand, when the Federal Reserve increases reserves by, say, purchasing U. S. Government securities, the interest income on these securities goes to the Federal Reserve System. Since the Federal Reserve turns over to the U. S. Treasury most of its earnings, the net effect of increasing the money supply by increasing reserves is to favor the private banking system. So, when the Federal Reserve officials decide to increase the money supply, whether they favor the U. S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference—in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay.
More...
 
Quote from Maverick74:

More...


“Let me put it this way, democrats use rich people to accomplish their ideological agenda. Why do they do this? Because it works”.

Unless I miss my guess, this means you believe that Democrats “tax and spend”, so the rich, through taxes, supply the money for whatever you interpret to be the Dem’s “ideological agenda”. Meanwhile what do the Republicans do to accomplish their “ideological agenda”? They BORROW and spend. This is why we have such a huge budget deficit. The “devil” Clinton managed to eliminate this debt. Now we have, in three short years, a record deficit once again. How in the world can any nation try and fight a war (on at least two fronts) and cut taxes? Do you believe that I or anyone WANTS to pay more taxes? Of course I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does. But on the other hand, I love America, and I am willing to pay my taxes if it helps to keep us free and safe. If I wanted to avoid taxes, I could. But I don’t mind paying my taxes because I believe in America. And I believe it is worth paying for. This is NOT to say I believe in bigger government. I only mean to say that we need to pay the bills as we go along. This just seems sound fiscal policy.

When you get your credit card bills, do you pay them as they come? Or do you pay the minimum amount each month and let the interest pile up?

Even George Bush Sr. said that “trickle down” economics was “voodoo economics”. But here we are, 16 years later, and GWB and company have the conservatives once again convinced that this trickle down stuff works. It doesn’t. We are a CONSUMER economy. It is a “trickle UP” economy (for lack of a better term). Why is this so hard to understand?

”You obviously do not watch the Cavuto Report. I have seen many personal interviews with Neil, and at his most serious and heartfelt moments, he has espoused these beliefs. Here is a man whose body is degenerating everyday. He has a very hard time walking and doing many physical things we take for granted, but he has said that he will never step down from his show until its no longer physically possible. I hardly would think he is going through the effort for entertainment value.”

What does Cavuto’s health have to do with his opinion? His job? You say “I hardly think he is going through the effort for entertainment value”….HUH? What does one thing have to do with the other? He is an entertainer by profession. Not a politician. Not a newscaster. If you don’t believe me, maybe you should ask him.

”I disagree with this. I know Pabst pretty well and I'm sure he believes this.”

OK, I concede that you probably know Pabst better than I do. I only “know” Pabst from what he says. And this just adds up to my impression that he is an insightful and intelligent guy. So certainly I may have let MY OWN BIAS interfere with my interpretation of what I GUESSED to be Pabst’s beliefs. All based on MY logic. So I agree that I may have made a false assumption. But the truth is, only Pabst can tell us how he feels about any single issue. I cannot read his mind, and neither can you.

”Democrats don't have a natural hate for the rich, but they have been brainwashed by the left to blame the rich for their lot in life. This brainwashing leads them to believe that they don't really have a shot in the world because it's a rich man's world and the system is against them.”

“Brainwashed”. “Lot in life”. “system against them”…..What are you talking about? You make it sound as if the Democratic Party is the party of the poor and deprived.. This is so ridiculous as to not even warrant a response. Except to say you cannot have it both ways. What happened to the famous right wing rally call that the “Effete Eastern Establishment” ran the left wing of the Democratic Party. Or do you not remember Spiro Agnew? No, I know (from Pabst actually) that you are too young. But take a poll on the campuses at the Ivy League schools as to how many of the enrolled students are Dems. or Reps. Ask also how many of the most highly educated of our society are “liberal” or “conservative”.

You know what? There is certainly a core of old money Republicans in the Ivy League schools as well as progressive Democrats. Like the Bush family. But do you think these old money families have ANY of YOUR interests at heart? No, these are the same war profiteering robber barons that never had to worry about going out and looking for a job upon graduation. This goes for the Kennedys (for example) just as it goes for the Bush’s (for example). For generations, these same families have taken from the poor and left savings and loan institutions float dead belly up (like Neil Bush, for example). Or done business with Hitler (like Prescott Bush for example). Or done business with the Bin Laden family (like George Bush Sr. for example). .

(continued)
 
¨I'm not angry at all. Sorry I don't feel the need to throw smiley faces in my posts but I get a good chuckle out of most of your posts. I don't know how you are interpreting my tone, but I'm a pretty happy go lucky kind of guy and I don't take anything seriously from the left. So no, it doesn't really bother me that much.¨

OK, you had me fooled about your disposition. Glad to hear you are a "happy go lucky" guy. But you say you "don't take anything seriously from the left". I can see that. Maybe you should broaden your horizons and listen to alternative points of view. I go out of my way to listen to conservative pundits. I LIKE hearing from both sides. I WANT TO KNOW what is being said and felt by all these talking heads. Give it a try. Start off light. Like a John Stewart. Anything is better than nothing. What is your down side?

¨Of course it is. Both parties in Washington are fighting for power and control. The republicans pander to the rich, the democrats pander to the poor¨.

Nothing like making sweeping generalizations. How can anyone respond to this? Except to say you should capitalize the names of the parties so as not to be misread. Spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure count. You are being graded:). Seriously, what you say is just not so. If this is what you believe, that's fine. But please understand that saying it and believing it still does not make it so. This is YOUR perception. Not fact.

"True, when speaking about the general population. I am speaking about democratic politicians.¨

Again, capitalize "Democratic"¨. Be accurate. And again, you are stating your opinion based on how you interpret things, not necessarily how they are. So in context (look back) you are saying that Democrat voters believe in America and the Constitution. But Democratic politicians do not? C'mon Mav!

¨I didn't lambast you. I know how you feel because you have posted how you feel on this message board at least 100 times. Now, you were either lying before or you are lying now. You have made your views very well known on here. No secrets. You may not be as hardcore liberal as ART, but you are on the left side of the aisle and you do believe in government dependency. If you didn't, you would never, I repeat never vote for a democrat.¨

Pretty harsh words Mav. (And again, please use upper case when it's called for). But what you say here goes to further my point that you and your fellow "Staunch Republicans" tend to see things in black and white. So thanks for making my case for me. ("NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT"). Talk about ridged and inflexible. I am truly sorry that you feel this way. But I am confident you will outgrow this attitude as you age and mature a little. Really Mav, I envy you your youth on many fronts, but not on this one.

¨I know a lot of democrats that vote for both parties. I don't know any republicans that vote for democrats. Ever heard of the Reagan democrats? I've never heard of the Clinton republicans.¨

I already addressed this, so we can skip it here. See the previous post for my response to this. And don't forget.... upper case.

"It's not about causes buddy, its about a philosophical belief system. Democrats in general believe in government dependency on some level. Some are more hard core then others, but they all believe in it. Republicans do not. Having said that, that does not mean there are not bad republicans, there are plenty, but they still believe in individualism, not collectism"

OK, I am done correcting your use (or lack of use) of upper case letters. But pay attention. You DO distort your meaning when you fail to properly do this. Having said this (again), I can only say that this is yet another example of your opinion. And sweeping and inaccurate use of stereotype and generalization.

"I don't care how you think your brain works. You might fool yourself into thinking you vote on the issue and not the man, but deep down inside you believe in dependency on some level, even if it is a minor level."

Please teach me this mind reading ability of yours. I will pay good money for lessons.

"I think its your off the wall posts that stir such emotion"

This was your response to my comment that I was called a "prick" and an "asshole" by my friend Pabst (and I really do like Pabst despite his outbursts..I did not take it personally). But please, give an example of what you consider an "off the wall" post that I made to incite such a harsh response. Really Mav, what was it I said that provoked this kind of anger? I really and truly do believe that the right wing mentality is an angry mentality when frustrated by counterpoints that don't have ready pat answers. So instead of giving reasonable responses, it is not uncommon to hear emotional outbursts. I cannot begin to even take a guess as to how many times I have heard the two words "liberal" and "asshole" linked by proponents of the right. I don't believe I have ever heard "conservative"¨ and "asshole" linked so casually by opponents of the right. You guys really do seem angry to me. Just like "staunch" and "Republican" are also linked. Very very telling. Must be no fun at all to live in a black and white world.

"The left has divided this country on the Iraq war, on pro-choice, education, minorities, social welfare, and religion. There are not enough hours in the day for me to go over them."

I already addressed this in that other post when I was in a hurry to go to dinner. Again, let's talk about abortion clinic bombing. Religion, and it's exclusion from our government was a basic building block of our Constitution. You don't like the Constitution any more?

As far as I know, more Democrats in congress were in favor of the Iraq war than were not. Of course it turns out we were lied to about the WMDs, but that is a whole other issue to argue and/or debate. Like I said, I truly believe this issue, along with the outcome of the studies done by the commission on 9/11 will be the undoing of the current Bush administration. I do not wish to beat a dead horse, but still, lying about sex got Clinton impeached. Lying about Iraq's WMD got American soldiers KILLED!!!! Saddam had to go. I always agreed with that. But not with the way we did it. I never saw a reason to go to war to get one guy. And yes, I feel strongly about this. I have a son in the military. I was in the military. I did not EVER feel any other way about war. If you are under attack, go to war. If there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, go to war. These are the laws of our land. What is complicated about this?

"I don't take it personally and again dude, I don't know why you think I am angry all the time, maybe I will start using smiley faces."

Worth a shot. You do come off as "angry" . Dude.

"Most liberals I know really really hate the rich."

Another of the original three points I addressed already. But looking at this statement again makes me wonder: Do you actually KNOW any "liberals"?

Again, there are so many very very rich "liberals". Do you truly believe they "really really" hate themselves???

Peace Mav,
:)RS
 
"democrats are class warfare socialists"...

I would say that some of them are. because the dirty scam you described is often shrouded in holier-than-thou and 'bleeding-heart' slogans, reinforced with a ubiquitous propaganda campaign that covers entertainment, education, civil government, business, and even religion, it is perceived as being 'reality' -- which it quite certainly is not. it's a facade that masks the worst evil that people have carried out.

given that, it is reasonable that people who are drawn to the so-called 'compassion' that used to mark the Democratic camp would be drawn into the ideology of left, which you refer to as class-warfare socialism. but 'Democrat' is not necessarily synonymous with 'leftist.' The left has claimed ownership of the Democrats. A democrat can be sane. A leftist has made his pact with the devil.
 
First off, before I start, RS, you should know its a faux paux to correct someones spelling or grammar on an internet message board. Therefore, I will continue to not capitalize republican and democrat. If you really like to edit all the 500,000 posts on ET, be me guest. Now let's begin.

Unless I miss my guess, this means you believe that Democrats “tax and spend”, so the rich, through taxes, supply the money for whatever you interpret to be the Dem’s “ideological agenda”. Meanwhile what do the Republicans do to accomplish their “ideological agenda”? They BORROW and spend.

Yes the republicans are borrowing a lot of money. A lot of that has something to do with a little thing called 9/11 and a little war we are involved in right now. Would you believe it if I told you that during WWII we actually spent a much higher percentage of our GNP. Yup, look it up. Having said that, Bush is spending too much on domestic concerns. Republicans in general shun non defense spending.

This is why we have such a huge budget deficit. The “devil” Clinton managed to eliminate this debt.

What are you talking about. Clinton did not get rid of the deficit. Dude, we were still about 3 trillion in the hole under Clinton. He did manage to balance the budget late in his term in part due to a roaring stock market and in part due to a republican house and senate. What he did not do was get rid of the deficit. His plan was to wipe out the deficit by 2015. Not during his term! LOL. Seriously dude that was funny.

Now we have, in three short years, a record deficit once again.

No, wrong again compadre. The deficit was never gone. Clinton balanced the budget. He did not get rid of national debt. Get this straight please.

How in the world can any nation try and fight a war (on at least two fronts) and cut taxes?

Bush is trying to fight a war and stimulate our economy at the same time. Would you rather stay in a recession for the duration of the war on terror that could last as long as your life, your children's lives and your grandchildren's lives.? I didn't think so.

Do you believe that I or anyone WANTS to pay more taxes?

This might be hard to believe but I have hear many democrats and hollywood liberals say they due in fact like paying taxes and wouldn't mind paying more.

Of course I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does. But on the other hand, I love America, and I am willing to pay my taxes if it helps to keep us free and safe. If I wanted to avoid taxes, I could.

Yeah, and you would go to jail.

But I don’t mind paying my taxes because I believe in America. And I believe it is worth paying for. This is NOT to say I believe in bigger government. I only mean to say that we need to pay the bills as we go along. This just seems sound fiscal policy.

LOL. Save the patriotic speech for someone that will listen. Democrats don't know the meaning of the phrase sound fiscal policy. Would you believe it if I told you that the democrats in Washington actually criticized Bush for not spending more!!!!! I'm dead serious, behind closed doors they actually wanted to spend more on these domestic programs then Bush did. Imagine that. so here you attack Bush and the republicans on wild and reckless spending, yet the left is mad that we are spending too little!!!! Hahaha. Oh, the irony.


Even George Bush Sr. said that “trickle down” economics was “voodoo economics”. But here we are, 16 years later, and GWB and company have the conservatives once again convinced that this trickle down stuff works. It doesn't’t. We are a CONSUMER economy. It is a “trickle UP” economy (for lack of a better term). Why is this so hard to understand?

LOLOLOLOLOL. Dude, Ronald Reagan started the greatest economic boom in this nation's history and launched the beginning of the greatest bull market you will ever see in your lifetime and your saying trickle down economics doesn't work. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Oh man this is too funny. You know, sometimes I think you are just saying things for the hell of it. You don't seriously believe this stuff do you? LOL.


What does Cavuto’s health have to do with his opinion? His job? You say “I hardly think he is going through the effort for entertainment value”….HUH? What does one thing have to do with the other? He is an entertainer by profession. Not a politician. Not a newscaster. If you don’t believe me, maybe you should ask him.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Dude you are a riot. Here, I'll post Cavuto's bio here. You read it and you tell me if this guy is a entertainer or serious journalist. I report, you decide. Ha!


"Neil Cavuto was named anchor and managing editor of business news for the FOX News Channel (FNC) in July 1996.

He was later promoted to vice president of business news, while continuing to serve as anchor of Your World With Cavuto, the No.1 business news show on cable. He also hosts the wrap-up weekly program Cavuto on Business.

Cavuto oversees all business coverage for FNC including Bulls & Bears, Forbes on Fox and Cashin' In. In addition, he serves on the cable network's executive committee.

Prior to joining FNC, Cavuto anchored and hosted more than three hours of live daily programming for CNBC, including the network's highest-rated program, Market Wrap, as well as Power Lunch and Business Insiders. While at CNBC, he was also a contributor to NBC's Today Show as well as NBC News at Sunrise.

Cavuto's 20 years of financial reporting include stints at PBS' Nightly Business Report, where he served as a New York bureau chief; Investment Age magazine and the Indianapolis News. Consequently, he has covered some of the most important business stories of the last two decades, including the 1987 stock market crash, the AT&T breakup and the Union Carbide chemical disaster in India.

Cited as "CNBC's toughest inquisitor," Cavuto was ranked among the most influential business journalists in America by The Journalist and Financial Reporter, and was recognized by the Wall Street Journal as the best interviewer in business news. He was also nominated for five Cable ACE awards, and voted the best business TV interviewer for four years running."

How do you like THEM apples!



OK, I concede that you probably know Pabst better than I do. I only “know” Pabst from what he says. And this just adds up to my impression that he is an insightful and intelligent guy. So certainly I may have let MY OWN BIAS interfere with my interpretation of what I GUESSED to be Pabst’s beliefs. All based on MY logic. So I agree that I may have made a false assumption. But the truth is, only Pabst can tell us how he feels about any single issue. I cannot read his mind, and neither can you.

I will invite Pabst in here to have him tell you how he feels about your ridiculous statements.

“Brainwashed”. “Lot in life”. “system against them”…..What are you talking about? You make it sound as if the Democratic Party is the party of the poor and deprived.. This is so ridiculous as to not even warrant a response.

It's true. Have you been watching the democratic debates? It's all about the poor, the 40 million that don't have healthcare coverage, affirmative action, minorities who can't get jobs. Yes, the democratic party is all about taking away from those that have it, to giving it to those that don't. Pure and simple.


You know what? There is certainly a core of old money Republicans in the Ivy League schools as well as progressive Democrats. Like the Bush family. But do you think these old money families have ANY of YOUR interests at heart? No, these are the same war profiteering robber barons that never had to worry about going out and looking for a job upon graduation. This goes for the Kennedys (for example) just as it goes for the Bush’s (for example). For generations, these same families have taken from the poor and left savings and loan institutions float dead belly up (like Neil Bush, for example). Or done business with Hitler (like Prescott Bush for example). Or done business with the Bin Laden family (like George Bush Sr. for example). .

Dude once again, that is not a republican or democrat argument. Sure the rich have lived privileged lives. What this has to do with out discussion is beyond me except to say that I would like the opportunity to attain that kind of wealth but with a liberal progressive tax scheme like the one we have now will never allow that to happen unless I move offshore and leave this great country.
 
OK, you had me fooled about your disposition. Glad to hear you are a "happy go lucky" guy. But you say you "don't take anything seriously from the left". I can see that. Maybe you should broaden your horizons and listen to alternative points of view. I go out of my way to listen to conservative pundits. I LIKE hearing from both sides. I WANT TO KNOW what is being said and felt by all these talking heads. Give it a try. Start off light. Like a John Stewart. Anything is better than nothing. What is your down side?

This may come to a huge surprise to you but I actually watch way more liberal news shows then conservative. Same goes for the stuff I read. See, I don't need to the right to tell me what I already know, so I actually enjoy listening to left a lot more. I actually do watch Jon Stewart every now and again, I've even been to his show in person. I watch Chris matthews a lot. I love Real Time will Bill Maher even though I disagree with him politically, he is very intelligent and very funny. So sorry to shoot you down there.


Again, capitalize "Democratic"¨. Be accurate. And again, you are stating your opinion based on how you interpret things, not necessarily how they are. So in context (look back) you are saying that Democrat voters believe in America and the Constitution. But Democratic politicians do not? C'mon Mav!

Actually I think both democratic politicians and democrat voters hate the constitution. That is why they are trying to re-write it everyday. That is why they keep using the phrase, that doesn't apply anymore, or that was written 200 some odd years ago. Or that is not really what they meant. They keep trying to take God out of the constitution. I think they are trying to remove the 2nd amendment altogether. It's a joke buddy, the left has very little respect for that great document.


Pretty harsh words Mav. (And again, please use upper case when it's called for). But what you say here goes to further my point that you and your fellow "Staunch Republicans" tend to see things in black and white. So thanks for making my case for me. ("NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT"). Talk about ridged and inflexible. I am truly sorry that you feel this way. But I am confident you will outgrow this attitude as you age and mature a little. Really Mav, I envy you your youth on many fronts, but not on this one.

OK, let me amend that statement. As soon as a democrat runs on cutting taxes, privatization of social security, pro life, pro 2nd amendment, smaller government, private healthcare system, school choice and school vouchers and pro defense, then I will indeed vote democratic. I stand corrected. Sorry.

Please teach me this mind reading ability of yours. I will pay good money for lessons.

OK, I will teach you but promise not reveal this to anyone else ok? OK, here it is, if something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then guess what? It's a DUCK!!!

You guys really do seem angry to me. Just like "staunch" and "Republican" are also linked. Very very telling. Must be no fun at all to live in a black and white world.

LOLOLOLOL! Ok man, whatever. Have you listened to the left lately? Have you seen Howard Dean blow a freaking vein giving a speech? Have you listened to Michael Moore or Al Franken speech. They are the epitome of anger. The right is very mellow, allow has been. That's actually one of my biggest complaints about the right. I wish they would be more angry. The problem is the left is more of an activist party, they get riled up a lot more easily and yell about things such as the environment, pro choice, tax cuts, healthcare, hell they yell about everything. Republicans need to start raising their voices more.

I already addressed this in that other post when I was in a hurry to go to dinner. Again, let's talk about abortion clinic bombing. Religion, and it's exclusion from our government was a basic building block of our Constitution. You don't like the Constitution any more?

Listen, I have no respect for those that take others lives or do harm to others. That includes those that kill abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics. Those people are called fanatics. They are not republicans.

As far as I know, more Democrats in congress were in favor of the Iraq war than were not.

No, no, no, no no! You are dead wrong about this. Those democrats supported the war for political reasons. They knew their careers in Washington would be over if they voted against the war. They didn't give a damn about protecting this country. Why do you think Clinton slashed our intelligence budget to almost nothing. And that is what caused the breakdown before 9/11. Look at how fast Dean's numbers dropped after he came out and made a snide remark about us not being safer after Saddam was caught. He never recovered after that. No, I can assure, your friends on the left did not support this war.

Of course it turns out we were lied to about the WMDs, but that is a whole other issue to argue and/or debate.

Dude, we know he had WMD in the past, he used it on his own people. Now what do you think, he just felt maybe he should stop the violence and see the error of his ways. Yeah that's it. He got rid of the WMD and decided he was going to turn over another leaf. OK, buddy, you keep believing that if it will help you sleep better at night.

I do not wish to beat a dead horse, but still, lying about sex got Clinton impeached. Lying about Iraq's WMD got American soldiers KILLED!!!!

Ahh, your parents raised you to believe that some lies are ok. They did a wonderful job with you. See, I was raised that all lies are bad. I guess we had different upbringing.

Saddam had to go. I always agreed with that. But not with the way we did it. I never saw a reason to go to war to get one guy. And yes, I feel strongly about this. I have a son in the military. I was in the military. I did not EVER feel any other way about war. If you are under attack, go to war. If there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, go to war. These are the laws of our land. What is complicated about this?

Well the complicated part is once you are attacked, it's generally too late. Nice try though.

Another of the original three points I addressed already. But looking at this statement again makes me wonder: Do you actually KNOW any "liberals"?

Actually, I know a lot of liberals. I probably have just as many friends that are liberals as conservatives.

Again, there are so many very very rich "liberals". Do you truly believe they "really really" hate themselves???

YES!!!!!!!!. It's called the guilt complex. Many of the born rich liberals, and thats what they are, because very few of them are self made, they don't belive in that. They are born rich, they go to their ivy league schools and make a lot of money and then feel bad that they had it so easy. See, a man that works for his wealth, a man that sacrifices and take risks, will never feel about his wealth because he knows he earned it. But the rich liberal from the upper west side in NY spends his entire life feeling guilty for not earning what he has. Sad, but true.
 
And finally, due to the work my wife is involved in, I know or have met virtually all the very richest people in Palm Beach, one of the wealthiest communities on the planet. As far as I can tell, more of them vote Democrat than Republican. Sorry to be the bearer of this sad news.

Let me add something to this ridiculous statement. I have spent a lot of time in south Florida and I can tell you that Palm Beach county and Broward county is the Jew capital of this country. I hate to say it like that, but it's true. I have a lot and I mean a lot of friends in those two counties since I went to college at UF, and I will tell you that south Florida is flooded with Jews. And I would say 90% of Jews vote democratic. BTW, RS, would you mind telling me your religious background? Sorry to rip apart your argument to pieces here but this one was too easy.
 
Maverick;

I said the following:

And finally, due to the work my wife is involved in, I know or have met virtually all the very richest people in Palm Beach, one of the wealthiest communities on the planet. As far as I can tell, more of them vote Democrat than Republican. Sorry to be the bearer of this sad news.


You responded with this:

Quote from Maverick74:


Let me add something to this ridiculous statement. I have spent a lot of time in south Florida and I can tell you that Palm Beach county and Broward county is the Jew capital of this country. I hate to say it like that, but it's true. I have a lot and I mean a lot of friends in those two counties since I went to college at UF, and I will tell you that south Florida is flooded with Jews. And I would say 90% of Jews vote democratic. BTW, RS, would you mind telling me your religious background? Sorry to rip apart your argument to pieces here but this one was too easy.
More...

I cannot believe I am even responding to this nauseating post. As far as I am concerned you have blown all credibility.

"I can tell you that Palm Beach county and Broward county is the Jew capital of this country. I hate to say it like that, but it's true."

Yeah, I can tell you "hate to say it like that". No, you make yourself VERY CLEAR. You said exactly what you did to make your point exactly as you did. It is quite clear how you feel. Clear to me, clear to anyone who reads this.

You said my statement is "ridiculous". In what way? Care to elaborate? I wait with baited breath. As I am sure many others do.

"Jew capital of the country"...Talk about "tone". I guess you don't like Jews (even though some of your best friends are Jewish....blah, blah, blah). You are really making yourself into a caricature of whatever it is you are.

Palm Beach and Broward is the "Jew capital of the country". I see. All those Jews like the Kennedys, etc. The Breakers hotel was restricted against Jews until President Kennedy said NO! When he addressed the ADL back in 1961 or 1962 or so.

Lot's of prominent Jews on Palm Beach. Like the Kennedys. Like Donald Trump. WTF are you basing your completely "ridiculous" (and bigoted and small minded) statements on?

You know what Maverick? I have been called a "prick" and an "asshole" because of opinions I have expressed here on ET. You yourself said in so many words that I deserved this because my posts were "off the wall". So I asked you to point out examples of what you interpret as "off the wall" statements I have posted that justified me being called names. Instead, you come up with an idiotic post like this. And saying this, I am insulting idiots the world over.

"90 percent of Jews vote Democratic". An idiotic statement based on what? Again, care to elaborate? Where did you get this entirely inaccurate statistic? From Herman Goering?

I had you wrong. I thought you were civilized and intelligent and reasonable. Sorry for the mix up! Let's just call it a case of mistaken identity, and forget it.

If I am to debate differences of opinions with conservatives, I will stick to the conservatives I respect. Like AAA, and Pabst, and Hapaboy, and so many others.

So you and I are finished here. However I will let you have the last word. You may explain to your little heart's and little brain's content what it was you meant by "Sorry to rip apart your argument to pieces here but this one was too easy."

I am sure even your fellow conservatives are anxiously awaiting THIS explanation. I am sure everyone is.

I am also sure that Pabst and AAA and Hapaboy and many others, but these three in particular ....I have a feeling for how they think.......now must consider you an embarrassment to their conservative "camp". They ALSO must now consider you to be devoid of credibility and decency.

They are conservative Republicans. This is NOT what you are. You have made it quite clear what your politics are. And that definition would be, in a word, disgraceful.

You claim to be a GWB Republican. I guess you must be disappointed that David Duke is not running. He is really more your kind of guy. Maybe next time.

You asked me to give you my religious background. Why?

You know all about the "Jew capital of the country". So what difference would my "religious background" make to you? If I am in Palm Beach county, and if I am not a Republican, then I am obviously a Jew. Just like the Kennedys, Trump, etc. Or Bob Montgomery. (Look him up, he is a perfect example). Try Google, and Robert Montgomery and tobacco.

Get a clue if it's not too late. (which I tend to doubt).

And truly Maverick....take stock in what you have said and what your feelings really are. At least admit to yourself what your beliefs are. Where they come from, and where they will take you.

And then start from scratch and try and become an American. An American with an American spirit. Try real hard to understand what freedom and our great country are about. Clearly you wrap yourself in the flag, and call others "un-patriotic". I suggest you either admit to yourself that you are NOT an American, or if that is too much for you to handle, then take baby steps. Think things through. Paying taxes is a privilege for me. Going into debt seems to be smart economics for you. Try and have at least a very basic understanding of the cost of freedom. And how that cost is paid.

And try and read the Constitution. And the Declaration of Independence. And then, after you do that, by all means, come back on ET and explain to us all exactly what it is about America and our system of beliefs that you like. What makes you think of yourself as an American. Certainly after this last post of yours, I don't see you as an American. And I am sure the majority of any of us who think this through will feel the same.

Until you do this, be prepared to be ignored not just by me, but by those you mistakenly believe to be of like mind. I assure you they too will find this last post of yours the disclosure of what you are about. And I am willing to bet they find your attitude as distasteful as I do.

Grow up Maverick. You are the kind of guy that when in an argument or a debate, you make the poeple on the same side of the issue as you wish you weren't. It is that simple.

RS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top