• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

I admire James Madison for things he wrote and accomplished in his life. I don't live by every word he uttered, nor do I feel compelled to.

And didn't just say you support safety nets?

"Safety nets". Yes.

Largesse. No.

Our problem is the latter. If you doubt me, go hang out in close proximity to the "cash registers" at Walmart for a 30 minute stretch.
 
I admire James Madison for things he wrote and accomplished in his life. I don't live by every word he uttered, nor do I feel compelled to.

And didn't just say you support safety nets?


So like many other liberals in this country, you enjoy the history of the founders, and admire their words, but in the end unless you can use it to liberal/progressive ends, then they are just outdated victorian thought that has no place in the modern world. Liberals would only cherry pick the constitution when it suits their needs, and when it doesn't then throw it in the trash.


j-mac
 
I agree with this assessment. And others should stop conflating liberalism with Stalin, if only for just this reason.
If your ideas weren't snuggled up so close to his ideas (Radical Karl's ideas really) we would have an easier time of it. When the differences are really more about the means rather than the ends what are we to think? And should you tell me only the fundamental ideas of Marxism inform the liberal elites while they leave out the crackpot ideas am I supposed to be relieved or simply duped?
 
Because of their emphasis on state control, both Nazis and Commies should be placed on the LEFT end of the spectrum. They were different in their levels of control in different areas of life, but if you removed the political stickers and simply looked at how they ordered society, they were remarkably alike. The commie party leadership and the arbitrary, capricious authoritarianism of the dictator at the top are interchangeable.


Stalin and the commies of course created the collective farms and state owned and directed factories.
Fortunately the Soviet Union's Central Planning under its handful of unaccountable czars became the model for the rest of the world. At last, under the wise gaze of our Dear Leader, the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama our economy is finally doing just as well as the Soviet Union's did.
 
So like many other liberals in this country, you enjoy the history of the founders, and admire their words, but in the end unless you can use it to liberal/progressive ends, then they are just outdated victorian thought that has no place in the modern world. Liberals would only cherry pick the constitution when it suits their needs, and when it doesn't then throw it in the trash.


j-mac

The constitution is the law of the land. James Madison's musings are not. And I admire many great thinkers throughout history, but I am my own man, and I don't feel I have to defer to any single belief because an arbitrary historical figure supported it.

I mean, even the founders disagreed with each other and strayed from their own professed orthodoxy at times in the course of governance.
 
If your ideas weren't snuggled up so close to his ideas (Radical Karl's ideas really) we would have an easier time of it. When the differences are really more about the means rather than the ends what are we to think? And should you tell me only the fundamental ideas of Marxism inform the liberal elites while they leave out the crackpot ideas am I supposed to be relieved or simply duped?

I have very little in common with Stalin -- save the name Joe. Your post is barely coherent.
 
I have very little in common with Stalin -- save the name Joe. Your post is barely coherent.
Oh come now, you can do better that that. Were my sentences too long for you? Let's see.
If your ideas weren't snuggled up so close to his ideas (Radical Karl's ideas really) we would have an easier time of it. - 23 words. Probably too long.
When the differences are really more about the means rather than the ends what are we to think? - 18 words. Nope. About right.
And should you tell me only the fundamental ideas of Marxism inform the liberal elites while they leave out the crackpot ideas am I supposed to be relieved or simply duped? - 31 words. Well yeah. You got me. This one is way too long for a liberal to understand.

I sorry.
 
The constitution is the law of the land. James Madison's musings are not. And I admire many great thinkers throughout history, but I am my own man, and I don't feel I have to defer to any single belief because an arbitrary historical figure supported it.

I mean, even the founders disagreed with each other and strayed from their own professed orthodoxy at times in the course of governance.

Oh really ? What James Madison has to say are "musings", while the gibberish of liberal simpletons is somehow gospel ? Madison is the most acknowledged Father of the Constitution. A common liberal idiot just one more pimple on the ass of the Republic.

Obama will not be the downfall of the Republic. The full-blown dumbass idiots who support him will be.
 
Here's where we start to part ways. Force is not always evil. I believe in restraint of force, but I understand that force is necessary, and I'm sure you do to, at some level. Traffic tickets are a form of force, but few would call for an unregulated highway system. I support social safety nets and other public programs paid for through taxation, which comes with threat of force.

Again, if you prefer safety nets you can group together with like minded people who also want safety nets. Perhaps form a co-op of some sort. But why have others involved who aren't interested in these 'safety nets', who have no confidence in government and prefer to look after ourselves, and our neighbors, independently?
 
Again, if you prefer safety nets you can group together with like minded people who also want safety nets.

That's what we've done. We call that group of like-minded people "Americans".
 
Last edited:
So all Americans are for these safety nets, or just some?

Depending on which program is in question, I would say a majority of Americans support certain safety net programs.

Social Security being one of them, there's a reason it's referred to as the 3rd rail of American politics, why do you think not even Republicans dare to try and end the program?

Now it does need reform to make it sustainable but that's a conversation for another time.

All in all you're doing your usual wannabe American right winger song and dance.

Mr. West made a unsubstantiated claim, which he has absolutely no evidence of and thus far has made no attempt to back up, and yet you sit here defending it as if it were the ****ing gospel.

And why?

Because you wish you were an American tea partier.

Well sorry you can't be one, but you're a relatively intelligent guy and you don't need to defend every single right wingers nutty claims about the opposition.
 
I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party, he is going to win.
 
Again, if you prefer safety nets you can group together with like minded people who also want safety nets. Perhaps form a co-op of some sort. But why have others involved who aren't interested in these 'safety nets', who have no confidence in government and prefer to look after ourselves, and our neighbors, independently?
The big question is does one go about accomplishing one's ends through peaceful cooperation or through violent coercion. As Grant said, there's nothing wrong with like-minded people getting getting together and creating a social safety net. It's when they use violence to coerce others into participating that their good intentions are outweighed by their barbarous actions.
 
Depending on which program is in question, I would say a majority of Americans support certain safety net programs.

You may say that but in fact you don't know if it's true or not. That's certainly not true in this health care debacle and I would suspect many other cases as well. But the government is forcing ALL Americans do get involved n their schemes whether it makes any financial sense or not. Why cant individual Americans make those decisions? Or, at the very least, each State.
Social Security being one of them, there's a reason it's referred to as the 3rd rail of American politics, why do you think not even Republicans dare to try and end the program?

Because once they are introduced, and all without the approval of the American people, they are very difficult to get rid of. There will be a lot of disappointed baby boomers, and beyond, who will not have the promised money for their retirement but who have made plans that this would be so. There will be no money for these people.

Now it does need reform to make it sustainable but that's a conversation for another time.

No, it is unsustainable. There is no way to reform this broken system because, in this system, its all about money, money that is not there. It's all very well to dream of "reform" as though that's a possibility for the scheme to continue but anyone who thinks that, especially with the trillion dollars increase in debt every few months, makes any "reform" impossible.
All in all you're doing your usual wannabe American right winger song and dance.

There is absolutely no way in the world I would want to be an American right now, for the reasons explained above. You should drop this silliness. These class wars are going to get rougher and I don't need that hassle.
Mr. West made a unsubstantiated claim, which he has absolutely no evidence of and thus far has made no attempt to back up, and yet you sit here defending it as if it were the ****ing gospel.

How do you know it is "unsubstantiated". Historically, its the communists who lie. We all know that, or should. And in fact Ive said more than once that I don;t know if these charges are true or not but they should certainly be investigated.

And why? Because you wish you were an American tea partier.

More silliness. That seems to form the basis of your debate style. If I wanted to be an American tea Partier there is nothing to prevent me.

Well sorry you can't be one, but you're a relatively intelligent guy and you don't need to defend every single right wingers nutty claims about the opposition.

I certainly could be a Tea Partier, as well as an American, but choose not to be. I'm happy spending most of my life in Canada and central America. Do you know of a good reason, if you think know me, why I would want that to change? I certainly have no interest in you beyond your juvenile posts to which I feel i feel obliged to respond. Why your fixation on my personal life?
 
So all Americans are for these safety nets, or just some?

A majority are for them, which is how a representative democracy decides what to do -- by a majority.
 
That's what we've done. We call that group of like-minded people "Americans".
So that is why we have the Food Stamp one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama. We want food stamps provided by our big brother government rather than a job provided by "evil" businesses. That explains it. Thanks.
 
A majority are for them, which is how a representative democracy decides what to do -- by a majority.


So you have downsized your previous statement from "Americans" to a majority of Americans.

But how do you know a majority of Americans wanted these programs to begin with? Are you claiming that the majority of Americans want the health care act Pelosi and Obama pushed through a blind Congress?

It seems you're going to have to downsize your claim some more.
 
So that is why we have the Food Stamp one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama. We want food stamps provided by our big brother government rather than a job provided by "evil" businesses. That explains it. Thanks.

As usual your analysis is flawless. :lol:
 
So you have downsized your previous statement from "Americans" to a majority of Americans.

But how do you know a majority of Americans wanted these programs to begin with? Are you claiming that the majority of Americans want the health care act Pelosi and Obama pushed through a blind Congress?

It seems you're going to have to downsize your claim some more.

One way to know is polls. Another way is that Americans keep electing polticians who support safety net programs -- and punish those who don't.

Of course health care reform has many components and it's not the case that everyone who opposes the whole package opposes every part of it. In fact polls show that when you break it down into component parts, most Americans support most of the law.
 
One way to know is polls. Another way is that Americans keep electing polticians who support safety net programs -- and punish those who don't.

Yes, that's true in many cases. There are not-too-bright Americans, as people everywhere, who will elect sleazy politicians who'll make promises they and the country cannot afford, or maintain over the long term. But they make them, and enact them, anyway.

It takes a more sophisticated people, like the Swiss perhaps, who can look at these programs and judge whether their country can afford them or not. This was also true of the United States when they had more State rights. But right now these left wing rubes. encouraged by Washington, really feel they can get something for nothing, it's all free, and 'the rich', or someone else somewhere, will pay for it.

Representative democracy works fine if you have an educated and moderately sophisticated electorate who understand the basics of how an economy works, but as we can see by the OWS people, and their supporters, that they are all rather clueless.

Nothing else matters to a many politicians more than getting elected and they will make enemies of others in their society, make promises they can't possibly keep, lie, distort and do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. And they will pick up many followers along if the can sufficiently manage to fake sincerity. BHO is among the best at that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's true in many cases. There are not-too-bright Americans, as people everywhere, who will elect sleazy politicians who'll make promises they and the country cannot afford, or maintain over the long term. But they make them, and enact them, anyway.

It takes a more sophisticated people, like the Swiss perhaps, who can look at these programs and judge whether their country can afford them or not. This was also true of the United States when they had more State rights. But right now these left wing rubes. encouraged by Washington, really feel they can get something for nothing, it's all free, and 'the rich', or someone else somewhere, will pay for it.

Representative democracy works fine if you have an educated and moderately sophisticated electorate who understand the basics of how an economy works, but as we can see by the OWS people, and their supporters, that they are all rather clueless.

Nothing else matters to a many politicians more than getting elected and they will make enemies of others in their society, make promises they can't possibly keep, lie, distort and do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. And they will pick up many followers along if the can sufficiently manage to fake sincerity. BHO is among the best at that.






Of course health care reform has many components and it's not the case that everyone who opposes the whole package opposes every part of it. In fact polls show that when you break it down into component parts, most Americans support most of the law.
[/QUOTE]

I'd say your argument has a bit of a problem if it comes down to only the Swiss, out of the whole civilized world, being smart enough to figure it out. Your other big problem is that the Swiss have implemented the mother of all insurance mandates to deal with most of their problems:

The Swiss have established a far-ranging and expanding program
of compulsory social insurance that imposes on each worker and his
employer a compulsory shared-risk program to provide for both the
expected and unexpected financial needs of most other workers.
This primarily self-sustained (with a minor government contribution)
insurance program provides the worker with old-age retirement,
disability and sickness insurance, survivors' insurance, accident
insurance, and unemployment compensation.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...reanddependencyinswitzerlandralphsegalman.pdf
 
Nonsense. Two different things totally. One thing you must admit that in this time of Obama, things have definitely swung hard to the left.

j-mac

O REALLY?

Paid any ****ing attention to what's become of our environmental protection laws under Obama?

Obama is no more "liberal" than Dubba was.

It's a case of SSDD, and it's going to remain SSDD for 4 more years.
 
Back
Top Bottom