Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (27877)	10/8/2004 4:09:56 PM
From: shadowman	Respond to of 173976

Ron, Nicely done. I'm surprised that the right wingers on this thread haven't attacked your premise. I've always likened the rights push for deregulation to holding boxing matches without a referee or weight classes. What the heck, what's wrong with Foreman/Ali Vs Arnold Stang/ Wally Cox? It's the fair unfettered free market in their eyes.<g>

To: Ron who wrote (27877)	10/8/2004 11:05:05 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 173976

Liberalism has borrowed the social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots" from Marxism. At bottom, liberals are the ones who believe in this. Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap. Seems liberals like Clinton also like free trade. There's an interesting fact about those desparetely poor people in the 3rd world: Japan used to be full of such people and by exploiting their cheap labor and trading abroad, they became a rich country. South Korea and Taiwan also used to be full of desparetely poor people and again exploitation of their cheap labor and free trade eventually lifted those nations into middle class status. China used to have NOTHING but desparately poor people. Now I read that they have 100 million middle class people. How did that happen? Liberals stuck in the antiquated Marxist world-view can't explain this. Free markets produce wealth. History and real world experiments (S Korea v N Korea, E Germany v W Germany, Taiwan v Communist China pre-economic liberalization) prove this. Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why? Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap. Well, why not just let parents kill their unwanted children? That would certainly free them from being "over a barrel", wouldn't it? But liberals ignore the moral issue involved. No place for morals in the Marxist world view. Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices". Poor choices and immorality really do lead to poverty. People who 1) graduate from high school, 2) marry before having children, and 3) avoid breaking the law and 4) avoid abusing of intoxicating substances have a very, very low poverty rate. People who don't do those things very frequently end up living in poverty and the more of those four things they fail to do the higher the rate of poverty. Here's a secret. (OK, it's not a secret. Lots of people know it.) Liberals don't want people to exercise self-responsibility. They want them to be irresponsible and poor so they will need the government to rescue them. Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners. This is a nonsensical argument. Bigotry doesn't make economic sense and imposes costs on the people who practice discrimination on non-economic grounds. A merchant who discriminates against his customers or potential customers deprives himself of sales. A discriminating employer deprives himself of talented workers. Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools. Urban school systems have been failing to educate large portions of their students for many years throughout America. All of the big city school systems have been run by Democrats for the last 50 years. School vouchers empower parents and give them alternatives to failing schools. Therefore it isn't surprising that a large majority of poor parents favor school vouchers. But liberals oppose them because they don't have the best interests of poor people at heart.

To: Ron who wrote (27877)	10/9/2004 8:07:27 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

SOCIALISM IS YOUR FRIEND (From Liberal Larry) Look at it this way: You go to the pie shop and realize that you only have enough money for one slice of pie. Then in walks Bill Gates who proceeds to buy all the pies and leaves you standing there completely pieless. Is that fair? Why does he get all the pies? Shouldn't he be made to share some of his pies instead of hording them all? Socialism says "YES, everyone is entitled to a piece of the pie! For now on, all pie shops will be under the control of The People, and The People will decide how to distribute the pies fairly and equitably." Imagine a world where, instead of walking into a pie shop and hoping, PRAYING you have enough money for one itty bitty little piece of pie, you simply put your name on a waiting list for the priviledge to go before a special commitee, who will carefully determine how deserving you are of pie, and will then give you a slice of pie FOR FREE!!!!! Never again will anyone have to pay for pie, and never again will one man be able to horde ALL the pie. No more will people compete to get more pie than their neighbor. Everyone will be entitled to exactly the same amount of pie, with the exception of the People on the Pie Committee, who will get extra pie because they wear party pins. How do you get a party pin? Well, you have to join the Party, and that will cost you a fee of 100 pies. Then you have to be approved by the party leader, MOI, and I don't like the shape of your nose. In fact, I think you're being greedy by coming around and asking for pie all the time when the People are starving in the streets. "I want pie! I want pie! ME ME ME ME ME!!!!" You are putting your needs above the needs of The People, and that just won't do. Your selfish attitude is harmful to The People, and you're the reason everyone is starving. It's because of YOU that there aren't enough pies to go around. The only way we're going to make this a perfect Socialist Utopia is if we put a stop to big-nosed, pie-stealing scum like you sabotaging the system! THE PEOPLE MUST BE CLEANSED OF YOUR DISEASE!!!! GET ON THE BOXCAR!!!! NOW!!!! So the next time some right-wing extemist asks if you're a socialist, just smile and say, "I like pie". blamebush.typepad.com