It's Class Warfare Alright.

undertheice

Well-Known Member
I hate to break this to you, but you're a liberal.
first, i have to tell you that i thoroughly enjoyed your rant. as disjointed and confused as it was, it was also one of the best laughs i've had today. next, you're quite correct. i am what used to be called a liberal. before the welfare state nonsense, the entitlements and the massive abuse of the violent powers of the state, liberals actually believed in the individual's power to control his own destiny. now that liberalism has become a mask of false compassion worn by statist dupes, i find that my beliefs and theirs have little in common.

what i found most amusing was that i am suddenly a statist pig because i believe in the ability of the people to take care of themselves without the massive interference of the welfare state and that i am a nationalist nutjob because i find merit in the american people's willingness to choose charity. perhaps you'd prefer that it was the state that performed all these charitable functions, instead of merely providing the incentive of the odd deduction here and there. while i would prefer that each man who could would give purely out of a truly charitable nature, i am not so foolish as to believe in the universal altruism of humanity. that a man should receive a tiny percentage of his donation back as an incentive to do what is right seems a small price to pay for guiding him toward a more generous existence. is it really such an act of statism to believe in allowing a man to keep some extra piece of what he has earned for being better than he needs to be?

every time an individual donates to help feed, clothe or house someone in need, that donation represents an easing of the strain on our welfare system and increases the possibility that the recipient of that charity may end his dependence on the state entirely. whenever someone helps support a school or museum they make an investment in the community and in the education of future generations. those who give to protect our environment, aid in disaster relief or provide support for the elderly increase the value of our society and help to sustain our moral duties. in one of the world's wealthiest nations, all of this should be done. the alternative to private funding is to demand the heavy hand of the state be used to provide us with these services. we have seen how slipshod a job our government does when faced with these tasks, the waste, the corruption and the inefficiency. should every penny of private donations be subject to deduction, the savings to the taxpayer would still be more than sufficient to offset the loss of revenue to the state.

the more i read back on your post, the more the selfishness and jealousy of your stance reveals itself. you worry that your taxes are adversely effected by allowing the charitable to hold back some extra bit of what they have earned. you worry that somehow your money might be mixed in with the willing donations of others. you seem to be quite concerned that someone else may be getting something out of this whole charity thing that you can't get a piece of. perhaps you have some deep seated distrust of charity in general or have that naive belief that good works are always to be considered their own reward. i'm certainly not going to try to figure that shit out. quite frankly, i really couldn't care less.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
so anyways,

anybody hear about Eric Cantor wanting to offset emergency funds with spending cuts...??? huh??

google it.

this guy wants to play politics with what could be an impending disaster headed HIS way.... i saw somewhere the storm surge near the eye of the storm was pulling up 40 foot waves and the sea level (also called storm surge) could flood a rather large portion of the eastern coast.

BTW, his district is on the path of the storm. let's see if he'll bring up: we can give this town emergency funds to clean up, if it'll just take some cuts to medicare....

see how well that would go over.... lol
 

jeff f

New Member
first, i have to tell you that i thoroughly enjoyed your rant. as disjointed and confused as it was, it was also one of the best laughs i've had today. next, you're quite correct. i am what used to be called a liberal. before the welfare state nonsense, the entitlements and the massive abuse of the violent powers of the state, liberals actually believed in the individual's power to control his own destiny. now that liberalism has become a mask of false compassion worn by statist dupes, i find that my beliefs and theirs have little in common.

what i found most amusing was that i am suddenly a statist pig because i believe in the ability of the people to take care of themselves without the massive interference of the welfare state and that i am a nationalist nutjob because i find merit in the american people's willingness to choose charity. perhaps you'd prefer that it was the state that performed all these charitable functions, instead of merely providing the incentive of the odd deduction here and there. while i would prefer that each man who could would give purely out of a truly charitable nature, i am not so foolish as to believe in the universal altruism of humanity. that a man should receive a tiny percentage of his donation back as an incentive to do what is right seems a small price to pay for guiding him toward a more generous existence. is it really such an act of statism to believe in allowing a man to keep some extra piece of what he has earned for being better than he needs to be?

every time an individual donates to help feed, clothe or house someone in need, that donation represents an easing of the strain on our welfare system and increases the possibility that the recipient of that charity may end his dependence on the state entirely. whenever someone helps support a school or museum they make an investment in the community and in the education of future generations. those who give to protect our environment, aid in disaster relief or provide support for the elderly increase the value of our society and help to sustain our moral duties. in one of the world's wealthiest nations, all of this should be done. the alternative to private funding is to demand the heavy hand of the state be used to provide us with these services. we have seen how slipshod a job our government does when faced with these tasks, the waste, the corruption and the inefficiency. should every penny of private donations be subject to deduction, the savings to the taxpayer would still be more than sufficient to offset the loss of revenue to the state.

the more i read back on your post, the more the selfishness and jealousy of your stance reveals itself. you worry that your taxes are adversely effected by allowing the charitable to hold back some extra bit of what they have earned. you worry that somehow your money might be mixed in with the willing donations of others. you seem to be quite concerned that someone else may be getting something out of this whole charity thing that you can't get a piece of. perhaps you have some deep seated distrust of charity in general or have that naive belief that good works are always to be considered their own reward. i'm certainly not going to try to figure that shit out. quite frankly, i really couldn't care less.
you can tell your detracters have no idea what charitable giving is and how its looked at by the irs.

if you get audited, you better have receipts for every penny of tax deductions for charitable contributions. including from your donations to the church on sunday.

the A-holes bithcing about charity dont give to charity which is blatently obvious from the cluelessness they exhibit in their criticism. you guys are a crack up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_charity_problem.html

here is a few articles on your wonderful bleeding heart heroes and their donations....all part of public record and pretty easily verifiable.

sorry to burst your liberal douchebag bubble.

looks like your heroes are more worried about a handout than giving a helping hand.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
you can tell your detractors have no idea what charitable giving is and how its looked at by the irs.
i find it absolutely hilarious that some fool would consider me a statist for finding merit it a system that allows the generous to hold back a bit of their wealth from the state and a little sad that his major complaint seemed to be that the state would look elsewhere for those missing funds. instead of rightfully worrying that the federal government demands far too much from us all, he's bitching that someone else is getting more than he is. what is happening to us? i really do miss those day when i could walk down the street, barefoot and beaded, and meet up with liberal folk who actually believed in giving of themselves.

i did find your links informative. $369.00!!?? shit, i give out more than that to panhandlers in the average year and i'm still scrambling to make ends meet. i guess this answers my question. when we choose people like this to lead us, their perverse moral compass is bound to rub off on us.
 

jeff f

New Member
Uti, I am just a hippy at heart and the modern progressive is so far gone, it's unbelievable. These are the folks that claim to want to "live and let live"? Ha ha yes, that's the last thing the modern progressive has on their mind.

They motto should be something like "lemme live on what you have worked for and my buddies will take all the rest"
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
love how jeff, a die hard neo con, claims to know what progressives want.

i'd like to know how conservatives always know what others, including the founding fathers, think.
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
love how jeff, a die hard neo con, claims to know what progressives want.

i'd like to know how conservatives always know what others, including the founding fathers, think.
I love how redivider, a true supporter of facism, claims to know what libertarians and true conservatives want.

I'd like to know how you know that others are wrong and that the founding father's were wrong.

touche'
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
i'd like to know how conservatives always know what others, including the founding fathers, think.
are you on this kick again? the only way to determine what others are thinking is through their actions and their demands. the liberal contingent here insists, contrary to most evidence, that conservatives are self-centered warmongers. at the same time, their opposite numbers claim that liberals are little more than hand-out kings, demanding the successful be forced to share their belongings with others. can you honestly deny that this is one of the main thrusts of modern liberalism? on the other hand, more our more conservative leaders haven't really engaged us in more wars and every study has shown conservatives to be more prone to charity in their private lives.

as for the founding fathers, all we have is the nation they built and the writings they have left behind. the most important of those documents, the constitution, concerns itself almost exclusively with the design of the federal government and the limiting of its powers. what would any reasonable man assume from such a legacy, that the liberties of the individual should be of paramount importance or that a central government should be allowed to run rough shod over the rights to property and self-ownership of that individual? despite over two-hundred years of power hungry politicians, we have managed to hold on to a great deal of that inheritance and here you want to piss it all away in the name of some artificial notion of material fairness.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Any Problems with that hazy?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
you are mistaken, ice.

progressive principles state that everybody should be guaranteed at least a standard of life that gradually gets better over time. we don't believe anybody should live in extreme poverty. we believe everybody is entitled to be somewhat educated.

what makes us believe all the war-mongering mumbojumbo is the evidence presented by your elected leader's choice of words and voting record. it has nothing to do with my ability to read people's minds, which is freakishlly accurate by the way.

:)
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
I love how redivider, a true supporter of facism, claims to know what libertarians and true conservatives want.

I'd like to know how you know that others are wrong and that the founding father's were wrong.

touche'
if it were up to the founding fathers we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, and some of the most basic rights you take for granted wouldn't be afforded to you, because you probably aren't a landowner....

it's because of progressives that this has come to be. your welcome.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
if it were up to the founding fathers we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, and some of the most basic rights you take for granted wouldn't be afforded to you, because you probably aren't a landowner....

it's because of progressives that this has come to be. your welcome.
Why do you think those white Republikkkans always talk about taking us back
 

bedspirit

Active Member
you can tell your detracters have no idea what charitable giving is and how its looked at by the irs.

if you get audited, you better have receipts for every penny of tax deductions for charitable contributions. including from your donations to the church on sunday.

the A-holes bithcing about charity dont give to charity which is blatently obvious from the cluelessness they exhibit in their criticism. you guys are a crack up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_charity_problem.html

here is a few articles on your wonderful bleeding heart heroes and their donations....all part of public record and pretty easily verifiable.

sorry to burst your liberal douchebag bubble.

looks like your heroes are more worried about a handout than giving a helping hand.
The point of my rant was not how much I care about charities how much tax money you're stealing from me. I'm in the bottom 50%, bitches. I don't pay federal income tax. You're pick pocketing the slightly richer folks. The point was to show how hypocritical you are in your beliefs. How can you be in favor of a smaller government, but still insist that they cover your charities? The government has no business getting involved with what you do with your money. That's the conservative and libertarian position. But you guys find that immoral or some such horse shit. You can't stand it when the government is charitable because they've made that choice for you with your tax dollars. You want to make that choice yourself, but you still want the government to get you back for that. What the fuck? Where did you assholes stand on the debt ceiling debate? Did you want to cut everything except that charity shit or what? I really don't understand what you guys are. You're kind of liberal, but you're kind of conservative. I just don't get it.

I suppose it's my fault for insisting you conform to some coherent set of beliefs. But you guys are no worse since the assumption seems to be that I'm a liberal and you guys know where I stand on everything based on that assumption.

Truth is that none of this matters. Monetary policy is the single most important issue in our society, and we've put an unaccountable private company in charge of that. We have no vote there. All this other shit serves as a distraction to that.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
I sure Like Goverment "charity" when they ensure that people with TB get their medication

Some things are a matter of Public Health
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
during the mid 1900s there were an average of 300 general strikes per year.

in all sorts of industries, ensuring the workers got a fair and equitable share of the profits generated.

in 2010 there were 10.

laws on both the state and federal level have removed the ability of organized labor to strike. therefore workers are striking less often.

during this same time the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has grown while the ranks of union membership have shrunk.

big money wants the government out of business, unless it is there to stifle it's workers ability to have an effect on it's financial statements.

we must stand up and return this country to the greatness it achieved by demanding that there be a strong middle class.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
how sweet, you've trotted out the same preamble that we've all read a thousand times before and even emphasized your favorite parts. so why don't we take a quick look at these nonspecific goals and see how they relate to the joint causes of statism and socialism.

establish Justice
well, that one seems to be straightforward. everyone wants to live in a just society. the problem begins when you start redefining the term "justice". at its heart it is defined simply as the concept that all men should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law, but it has become so much more. we now hear of social justice, material justice and justice as a means of an even distribution of wealth. gone is the simple, straightforward message that the law should treat each man the same. in its place is the absurd notion that we are all destined to occupy the same social standing and are entitled to the same material wealth. what started as justice has become fairness, from that to evenness and the mediocrity of we all know and love.

insure domestic Tranquility
this bit has always seemed problematic to me. how does anyone insure the tranquility of mankind, a decidedly untranquil animal. with all his lust, avarice and envy, it is a formidable task to tranquilize him. religion, the opiate of the masses, can't do it and we certainly don't want to sedate the entire population. instead, we have devised the tactic of capitulation. a segment of the population becomes unruly over some perceived slight or unfairness and we hand them a scapegoat. we limit the freedoms of some so that others can feel better about their lot in life. what once was merely an impressive turn of phrase, is now the means by which any group can stifle opposition and gain clandestine advantage.

provide for the common defense
i don't wonder that you've failed to emphasize this one. it can be difficult to justify the hypocritical stance of modern liberalism on the subject of the military when it is realized that its existence is one of the government's primary duties. well, i'm not going to embarrass you with the constitutional justifications for nearly every conflict that liberals have used as sounding boards to stir the emotions of the mob and seize power. the protection of american interests overseas, the retaliations for attacks on the american people and the support of our allies are all within the bounds of this primary duty.

promote the general Welfare
this is one of the favorites among liberals today. it is so popular that they even named a system of entitlements after it. it is so broadly worded that it could mean almost anything. it is used by the statists of the liberal establishment, in conjunction with the confiscation of property permitted by the 16th amendment, as a mandate to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, currying favor with the poorer segments of the population and granting themselves more power at the polls. it has been used as the justification for the creation and every expansion of the welfare state, the federal plantation that bestows just enough comfort on those who fail to succeed that they hunger for and eventually expect more. this one broadly worded phrase has been the impetus for government enforced retirement savings, restrictions and prohibitions placed on the individual to protect him from himself and the regulation of industry to make sure that no one has to try too hard to succeed. where a more conservative view might be that it is a call for government to protect our right to do all this for ourselves, our extravagances have led us to consider it a promise that all citizens should be afforded the comforts that only effort can provide.

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
ah, there's the rub. that one word, "liberty". once again you have failed to emphasize it, most likely because it describes freedom and all the responsibility that goes along with it. it is liberty to be free of the clutches of the state, something our nation's founders knew quite a bit about. it is liberty to be secure in the ownership of ourselves and our possessions and it is liberty to face the responsibility of our failures. it is this liberty and the posterity of this phrase that the liberal establishment so abhors. each new liberal policy heaps the responsibility of some on the backs of others and relieves the envious mob of that onus. the welfare state is all about the now, relieving the pains of effort at the expense of the good that experiencing that pain may do in the future. these political animals rely on our acquiescence and the power they gain by our dependence on the state. we are, after all, merely numbers to them, counters on a game board that determines their place in the hierarchy of our rampant bureaucracy. we are busily buzzing drones and gently bleating sheep, creatures incapable of seeing beyond our limited horizons and unaware of the damage our ignorance does to the future. the less jaded may see that prosperity as our ultimate responsibility. they may recognize that the pains we feel today are building the self-sufficiency we will need in harsher times and that all we fail to invest today is a debt we pass on to our descendants.


i realize that this post will warrant an entire page of purple from our little buckaroo. it is oratory in the traditional style and every word of it echoed in my mind before i committed it to the permanence of this page. i also realize that not a single word of it will make the slightest difference to the statist dupes who read it and i really don't care. every once in a while my words resonate with someone who is not so envious of the success of others or so jaded by the rhetoric of the populist blame game. occasionally some soul finds a glimmer of truth in what i write down or speak aloud that can be used to build a responsible world view upon. it's for those few and, of course, the simple joy of expressing such a responsible view that i even bother to put in the time required for these posts.
 
Top