America's Socialist Programs

[rb336]

yeah, great example, you forgot one......

The National Socialist German Workers Party [[German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party

why is it that the wingnuts are so lacking in knowledge of history?

Since you cribbed that from Wiki, why didn't you just read a little further to find out that it was anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-organized labor [[they were the first group rounded up by the brownshirts, and the group from which they emerged was the german independent workers - the opposite of organized labor). They were against international capitalism [[which gave, in their mind, to much power to Jews), but the countries leading capitalists - from Deutsche Bank to Daimler - poured money into Nazi coffers, as did Ford, IBM, and other capitalist entities.

[Danny]

NO WAY! all of these socialist post-Soviet programs will be cut in the U.S. It would be the poor rising up, overthrowing the government all over again, creating a new socialist Sovietesque government all over again. We need these programs to keep American float and keep proletarians happy. The Republicans and Democrats can't cut these programs only regulate or deregulate it.

[oladub]

Why isn't it well thought out? These are all things that are in question from those on the "tea bag" side. The guys you seem to support. It was a copy and paste job from one of the myriad websites availiable to read on the subject.

I already explained why it wasn't well thought out. It attacks Constitutional mandates requiring spending by the federal government, catagorizes import taxes as socialism, and ignores corporate welfare. Is "you guys' a variation of "you people" or just mental laziness when stereotyping is required?

rb chimes, "More chest thumping about the "limits of the 10th ammendment" which are ambiguous at best, and often exclude things that actually ARE explicitly given to the federal government [[and upheld as such since the first Supreme Court)

I understand your apprehension regarding enforcing the Tenth Amendment. There would be no point to the entire Democrat and much of the Republican Party if enforced at least at the national level. You are correct though that the Supreme Court also chooses to explain it away. If the Supreme Court similarly ruled that 2+2 could equal 5, unlike you, I would still be arguing it can only equal 4. I still don't understand your problem with having states run more of their own programs. I would think that a Canadian like single payer health care program run by a state would be superior to Obama's 'keep the insurance companies and attorneys rolling in money' health care program for instance.

Goose, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I'm fine with most local services. As you say, they tend to benefit everyone. While a rich person might have a better house requiring fire and police protection, he/she is also paying proportionally more property tax for those services. If rich enough, he/she probably sends the kids off to private schools while still providing taxes for public schools like th Obamas and Clintons. Everyone benefits from the roads, libraries, etc. which are shared and in common. I live in Wisconsin and am pretty sure that Wisconsin can do a better job of administrating WIC, education, and scores of other services than the federal government despite out spendthrift governor. Ghettopalmetto, down in South Carolina, might rather have the federal government handle his money. I guess we get what we vote for.

[Stosh]

I already explained why it wasn't well thought out. It attacks Constitutional mandates requiring spending by the federal government, catagorizes import taxes as socialism, and ignores corporate welfare. Is "you guys' a variation of "you people" or just mental laziness when stereotyping is required?

You haven't a clue as to why I posted that, do you? Let's be blunt, shall we?

There are no constitutiinal mandates to a teabagger. There are no limits as to the programs that could be cut. 'You guys'? How lazy are you? You can't even read a quote correctly. I refer to the idiots that you are supporting for office. You know, the ones that want to cut taxes yet not telling what they have to cut to get to that point.

[terryh]

If I wasn't an Atheist I would thank god for socialist programs. Just knowing that if my wife isnt working when our baby is born, we will qualify for a bridge card [[ we recieve WIC now) and possibly obtain assistance paying for our electricity, has a very postive effect on peace of mind. When my son was born I was too proud to let my ex-girlfriend take any assistance, stubbornly trying to 'do what was right' until she could start working. If I could go back and do it over I would have insisted she apply for welfare[[my ex and I have more than contributed to the system since then) as it would have taken a huge strain of our relationship,getting temporary help from government programs.

Thank you Karl Marx.

[oladub]

You haven't a clue as to why I posted that, do you? Let's be blunt, shall we?

There are no constitutiinal mandates to a teabagger. There are no limits as to the programs that could be cut. 'You guys'? How lazy are you? You can't even read a quote correctly. I refer to the idiots that you are supporting for office. You know, the ones that want to cut taxes yet not telling what they have to cut to get to that point.

I think that you should use the word 'dull' instead of 'blunt' because it better describes your perception with regards to this issue.

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals. It's use, by liberals, is condescending in the way the use of the N word by klansmen is condescending. Same sort of approach anyway. Remember, too, that Ross Perot was rebuked when he addressed a NAACP gathering as 'you people'. That was the term you also used when you were stereotyping Tea Partiers earlier in the thread.

The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007. Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as there is. The Tea Party movement has since been largely taken over by the mainstream Republican party but still has antipathy for things like the Wall Street bailout. Which candidates are you imagining I am supporting for office by the way? You are missing the nuances of differences between the various players. Republicans who have voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout have been booed off of Tea Party stages. Ron Paul, for one, does say what has to be cut beginning with withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan and other countries. He would also cut things not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government such as corporate welfare.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 7351
Don't deny who originated the verb in political context

[oladub]

Jimaz, You have shown that sign before. Again, some of those people, as stosh might say, are, or were, unaware of sexual connotations. I had never heard of that connotation myself until libs on the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground began all their snickering reflecting their hipness to this sexual practice. It follows that when liberals use the term, 'tea baggers', it is used in dirision much as klansmen use certain words to deride groups they dislike. You also assume, but do not know for sure, that the holder of the sign is indeed a tea partier rather than someone trying to make tea partiers look foolish.

Meanwhile I have supported single payer health care at the state level on this thread, a manifestation of socialism, and the concept sails over your collective corporatist heads.

[Jimaz]

That sign, signed by FreeRepubic.com, speaks and will continue to speak for itself. Let the reader beware of those who would deny FreeRepubic.com's intended meaning of their verb.

[jiminnm]

More chest thumping about the "limits of the 10th ammendment" which are ambiguous at best, and often exclude things that actually ARE explicitly given to the federal government [[and upheld as such since the first Supreme Court)

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment, primarily through the use of equal protection clause, will eventually be used to totally eviscerate the 10th amendment. It's taken a while for those who want the Feds to regulate everything to discover it, but I expect the next 40-60 years will see the SupCt uphold the federal regulation of pretty much whatever those in power want the Feds to regulate.

[Stosh]

I think that you should use the word 'dull' instead of 'blunt' because it better describes your perception with regards to this issue.

Funny. I guess that means that you are the happiest person on this board, since ignorance is bliss, as the adage goes.

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals. It's use, by liberals, is condescending in the way the use of the N word by klansmen is condescending. Same sort of approach anyway. Remember, too, that Ross Perot was rebuked when he addressed a NAACP gathering as 'you people'. That was the term you also used when you were stereotyping Tea Partiers earlier in the thread.

I'd use dullards or knuckledraggers, but you've usurped those descriptors for your own pitiful description.

The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007. Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as there is. The Tea Party movement has since been largely taken over by the mainstream Republican party but still has antipathy for things like the Wall Street bailout. Which candidates are you imagining I am supporting for office by the way? You are missing the nuances of differences between the various players. Republicans who have voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout have been booed off of Tea Party stages. Ron Paul, for one, does say what has to be cut beginning with withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan and other countries. He would also cut things not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government such as corporate welfare.

Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct. Ron Paul was duped. The backers of this shameless organization are Murdoch and the brothers Koch. Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?

[Stosh]

Jimaz, You have shown that sign before. Again, some of those people, as stosh might say, are, or were, unaware of sexual connotations. I had never heard of that connotation myself until libs on the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground began all their snickering reflecting their hipness to this sexual practice. It follows that when liberals use the term, 'tea baggers', it is used in dirision much as klansmen use certain words to deride groups they dislike. You also assume, but do not know for sure, that the holder of the sign is indeed a tea partier rather than someone trying to make tea partiers look foolish.

Meanwhile I have supported single payer health care at the state level on this thread, a manifestation of socialism, and the concept sails over your collective corporatist heads.

Actually I won't ever use the descriptor 'people' again in regards to those cretins.

Maybe alleycats may be a better term? Perhaps dolts or imbiciles? Maybe I'll just call them by what they are. Oladubs. Nuff said.

[oladub]

Stosh wrote, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct. Ron Paul was duped. The backers of this shameless organization are Murdoch and the brothers Koch. Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?"

Duped? How?

OK here's Proof: Some old campaign videos are still floating around dated 2007 including this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_Ow...eature=related
Always? Then I've made it easy for you. All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. So show us you stuff and bring out the pre-Ron Paul Republican Tea Party stuff.

"The Tea Party focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and upholding a conservative view of the Constitution."

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives." - lies from wikipedia

George Soros contributed the same amount to his causes last week as the Koch brothers, the liberals new bogeymen, but I don't see any point in whining about what George Soros chooses to do with his money or to blame Soros for all the Democrats who voted for war, high unemployment, and runaway federal debt.

[Gistok]

yeah, great example, you forgot one......

The National Socialist German Workers Party [[German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party

Blah blah blah.... having to dig into the dustbin of history to make your point....

Germany today is much more socialist than we are today... and how badly is their economy fairing in these hard times??? [[Sound of crickets....)

[Stosh]

Duped? How?

OK here's Proof: Some old campaign videos are still floating around dated 2007 including this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_Ow...eature=related
Always? Then I've made it easy for you. All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. So show us you stuff and bring out the pre-Ron Paul Republican Tea Party stuff.

Yes, always. At least to mainstream America, anyway. Paul's little shitfest in 07' basically amounted to nothing more than a fundraiser for his run for president. And don't you know that the unfortunate symbolism that Ron created got the attention of the republican party, and the Koch and Murdoch empires? They know a fucking bonanza when they see it.

Paul's fundraiser has nothing to do with the direction this "movement" [[as in bowel) has taken, take your head out of your ass, please.

"The Tea Party focuses on smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and upholding a conservative view of the Constitution."

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives." - lies from wikipedia

George Soros contributed the same amount to his causes last week as the Koch brothers, the liberals new bogeymen, but I don't see any point in whining about what George Soros chooses to do with his money or to blame Soros for all the Democrats who voted for war, high unemployment, and runaway federal debt.

"Lies from wikipedia", inserted by you, tells me all I need to know about your character. The key phrase, last week, in relation to Soros and Koch, is quite the stretch of the point. The Koch brothers already planted the seed money long before last week.

[rb336]

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment, primarily through the use of equal protection clause, will eventually be used to totally eviscerate the 10th amendment.

That is the most absurd thing I have heard here lately.

[Stosh]

OK, here's a list of examples of the tea party being used before 2007. I'm sure that there are more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l-ViCwNMts


http://books.google.com/books?id=FiP...=0CC8Q6AEwADgy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7uc...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qsl...page&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mmX...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lV8...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2PU...0party&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_pt...page&q&f=false

Handbook of political science: Volume 2

Fred I. Greenstein, Nelson W. Polsby - 1975 - Snippet view
is an issue orientation: "a candidate who can handle not only the supermarket handshaking tour but also the neighborhood political tea party," a candidate who satisfies the increasing demand of the issue-oriented participants within the ...
books.google.com - More editions

[oladub]

Stoch says, "Yes, always. At least to mainstream America, anyway. Paul's little shitfest in 07' basically amounted to nothing more than a fundraiser for his run for president. And don't you know that the unfortunate symbolism that Ron created got the attention of the republican party, and the Koch and Murdoch empires? They know a fucking bonanza when they see it."

Paul's fundraiser has nothing to do with the direction this "movement" [[as in bowel) has taken, take your head out of your ass, please.

Stosh you are very good in the anal name calling [[shitfest, bowel movement, head out of ass within four sentences) department but short of facts. When I previously claimed the modern tea party movement started as a Ron Paul fundraiser you replied, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct." . When I posted a 2007 tea party video proving my point and challenged you to prove yours, you could only muster namecalling and a fuzzy concept about the Koch brothers.

"Lies from wikipedia", inserted by you, tells me all I need to know about your character. The key phrase, last week, in relation to Soros and Koch, is quite the stretch of the point. The Koch brothers already planted the seed money long before last week.

The choice of the word 'lies' is a reference to your earlier comment," Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?" The wikipedia article verifies what you had previously called 'lies.' But congratulations anyway for struggling through an entire sentence without anal references.

I was referring to George Soros as the person who wrote a check for $100M just last week. It was his latest contribution. More power to him. My point, which you misconstued, was that all your problems are not the fault of the Koch brothers and to be of good cheer because billionaires on your side like Buffet and Soros regularly make their political, economic, social contributions too.

[Stosh]

Stosh you are very good in the anal name calling [[shitfest, bowel movement, head out of ass within four sentences) department but short of facts. When I previously claimed the modern tea party movement started as a Ron Paul fundraiser you replied, "Bullshit. The Tea Party has and always will be a republican construct." . When I posted a 2007 tea party video proving my point and challenged you to prove yours, you could only muster namecalling and a fuzzy concept about the Koch brothers.

Bullshit. fight shit with shit, that's my motto. Don't like it? Tough shit. I did prove it. Below the post. Your turn

The choice of the word 'lies' is a reference to your earlier comment," Please don't post more of your lies without substantial proof otherwise, OK?" The wikipedia article verifies what you had previously called 'lies.' But congratulations anyway for struggling through an entire sentence without anal references.

Anal is as anal does.

I was referring to George Soros as the person who wrote a check for $100M just last week. It was his latest contribution. More power to him. My point, which you misconstued, was that all your problems are not the fault of the Koch brothers and to be of good cheer because billionaires on your side like Buffet and Soros regularly make their political, economic, social contributions too.

Not my problem. At least he didn't get rich supporting Stalin.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...alin_20100418/

[Stosh]

Also this example.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7237051449970#

[Stosh]

Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution - Page 196

Alfred Fabian Young - 2000 - 262 pages - Preview
The contest for the symbolism of the tea party goes on. In April 1998, two Republican congressmen prepare to dump a copy of the federal tax code from the tea party ship as two protesters shout, "Your tax will sink the working family. ...
books.google.com - More editions

http://books.google.com/books?id=4__...rty%22&f=false

The Republican years: the Scranton-Shafer era of change and ...
No cover image
Paul B. Beers - 1971 - Snippet view
The Philadlephia Republican chairman, of all people, William J. Devin, said business should be paying 46 percent of the .... Out in Boston, Penna., near Pittsburgh, 250 rebellious taxpayers staged a second Boston Tea Party, paddling a ...
books.google.com - More editions

http://books.google.com/books?id=6Sp...rty%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=1rX...rty%22&f=false

[oladub]

-In reply Stosh post #42


Stosh, much better.


The first link is from 2006 and shows a sign saying Texas Tea Party but I couldn't hear anything linking the sign to the Republican Party naybe because the audio was bad


Links two, six, and nine reference feminists using the tea party theme, not the Republican Party unless you equate pre Republican party feminist concerns with Republicans.


The fourth link refers to the fifty third congress in the 1890's if you want to deem that the modern tea party movement.The seventh link refers to the anti-corn law tea party in 1842 before the Republican Party existed.


The only two links which make your point are the third and fifth links. The third link does make your point. A right wing disk Jockey in Detroit did suggest throwing tea bags at offending politicians. The fifth link also makes your point mentioning Howard Jarvis's mention of the tea party and another anti-big government reference. So, you are right in that there were at least two mentions of the tea party and tea bags in the last couple of decades before Ron Paul made it a major theme in his 2008 campaign and the rhetoric and symbolism flowed into post election tea party rallies.

[Stosh]

-In reply Stosh post #42


Stosh, much better.


The first link is from 2006 and shows a sign saying Texas Tea Party but I couldn't hear anything linking the sign to the Republican Party naybe because the audio was bad


Links two, six, and nine reference feminists using the tea party theme, not the Republican Party unless you equate pre Republican party feminist concerns with Republicans.


The fourth link refers to the fifty third congress in the 1890's if you want to deem that the modern tea party movement.The seventh link refers to the anti-corn law tea party in 1842 before the Republican Party existed.


The only two links which make your point are the third and fifth links. The third link does make your point. A right wing disk Jockey in Detroit did suggest throwing tea bags at offending politicians. The fifth link also makes your point mentioning Howard Jarvis's mention of the tea party and another anti-big government reference. So, you are right in that there were at least two mentions of the tea party and tea bags in the last couple of decades before Ron Paul made it a major theme in his 2008 campaign and the rhetoric and symbolism flowed into post election tea party rallies.

What about the other ones?

[Jimaz]

... At least he didn't get rich supporting Stalin.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...alin_20100418/

Most interesting article I've read all week. Thanks!

[Detroitej72]

"Teabaggers', I always have to remind liberals, refers to people particpating in sexual practices better understood among liberals.

I'd like to see what study you used to come to this conclusion since known cons like Larry Craig, Tom Foley, and Ted Haggard, among others seem to know a thing or two about "tea-bagging".