Add a comment above
Top Opinion
-
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/12 13:02:46Yes.
+14He has shown no limit beyond which he would take the government, if Congress and the courts would let him. He has surrounded himself with those who look for a future of Five Year Plans, input-output analysis, and all news coming from a new Department of Information. (And I do not mean "information technology.")
To elaborate, you have proven incapable of articulating just one way in which the goals of the New Party would infringe upon the rights and liberties enjoyed by all citizens of the United States of America. Since the two are obviously compatible, their possible implementation should be explored.
for the stated goals of the new party to be implemented, redistribution of wealth would take place, the government would be able to tell us what cars to dirve, what our thermostat can be set at, what kind of light bulbs we can burn, what words we can speak, take away guns, bascially we would have a centrally planned government, and state control of everything. no one that i know wants any of this. only radical far-left loons.
since you believe the new party's ideas are good, i challenge you to provide factual evidence that ALL citizens would benefit from their plans.
just how the phuck could you possibly believe that ANYONE has the power to pull this one off? wow, are you people dense.
"Who is asking for guaranteed results?" you are you moron! you want the government to "ensure full employment" you want the government to "provide a living wage" you want the government to "provide healthcare." you simply want the government to do everything for you, including wiping your sorry, lazy leftist a$$.
I defy you to prove me wrong. I challenge you to explain how the implementation of any of the stated goals of the New Party would infringe upon any of the rights enjoyed by citizens of the United States of America. If you can’t do that, then you must concede that you are nothing but a slave who is cringingly obedient to the instructions of the master.
Just to refresh your memory, the stated goals of the New Party is to ensure full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.
What is pathetic is that I already know that you won’t be able to come up with a single way in which the implementation of any of these goals would infringe upon the rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Here is what you will do. You will answer my legitimate question by calling me either a leftists or a socialist or a Marxists. In short, you will attempt to evade the question.
you ask no legitimate questions for me to answer. all you do is ponder far-left radical beliefs on the sodahead website. there is no chance of having a legitimate discussion with you.
why don't YOU explain to all of us how you would go about implementing the ideals of the new party. after each one, provide a monetary figure of how much it will cost, and where the money will come from. if you cannot, you need to shut your far-left lunatic pie hole.
there, i met your challenge, and proved you wrong you leftist idiot.
This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America
By Porter Stansberry
I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment…
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair – to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can ...
This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America
By Porter Stansberry
I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment…
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair – to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.
Oh… and one more thing…
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?
That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…
Regards,
Porter Stansberry
"Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.
I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
First there is what is called Free Market Capitalism.
This is wheres lets big bureaucrat corporations do what they want with very little
government control.
Then there is social market economy which levels the the field.
This protects the lives and property of the citizens and their property.
The company's are privately downed with more goverment involment to make sure
compotition is fair and there is social welfare for those who need it.
So we ahve been a socialist country and most people keep asking is Obama
a Socialist no more then all the rest of the presidents. I change my answer to YES.
Yet people even the so called smart ones don't get it.
1
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party in the group’s own literature.
WND also conducted an exclusive with Marxist activist Carl Davidson, a founder of the New Party, who recounted Obama’s participation.
In 2010, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
Aaron Klein’s “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America” exposes Obama’s presidential agenda
“When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it,” wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.
Now, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online today, reports on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.
Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, a...
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party in the group’s own literature.
WND also conducted an exclusive with Marxist activist Carl Davidson, a founder of the New Party, who recounted Obama’s participation.
In 2010, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
Aaron Klein’s “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America” exposes Obama’s presidential agenda
“When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it,” wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.
Now, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online today, reports on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.
Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.
According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his 2008 campaign for president.
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
If Obama indeed signed the contract, not only would his campaign be caught in a lie but it could prove highly embarrassing for him at a time when he is fighting claims, including from Mitt Romney’s camp, that his policies are socialist.
Also, Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan of “Forward” has been criticized for its use of a historic socialist slogan.
Socialist goals
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
This past month was the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony. The USAF Thunderbirds air show was scheduled once the ceremony was finished. President Obama spoke to the cadets and handed out their diploma’s.
The T-Birds got in one fly by, then they disappeared.
Some one in the crowd called Peterson Field and found out that the air show was halted because Obama wanted to leave. A helicopter soon appeared and flew around in a circular pattern, basically doing reconnaissance as Obama’s motorcade exited the Air Force Academy. He was going to Denver to do some more fund raising since Colorado is a swing state.
After he left, the Thunderbirds came back and continued the show for the graduates. Think about this. Obama comes to a graduation, speaks, gets his photo op, then decides to leave before the Thunderbirds can complete their air show
http://finance.townhall.com/c...
Someone didn't get theirs.
>then decides to leave before the Thunderbirds can complete their air show
Oh noez!!!!1! One of the busiest persons in the world left!!!!1! You Conservatives will whine about anything.
if socialism is what he is after, than he is doing a lousy job of that.