LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Ocasio-Cortez Is Asked How America Will Pay For Her Socialist Dreams. Guess How Much Information She Has In Her Head.
Source:
The Wire
URL Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/3419 ... rica-will-pay-her-hank-berrien
Published: Aug 8, 2018
Author: HANK BERRIEN
Post Date: 2018-08-08 08:59:25 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 12759
Comments: 93
Speaking with host Jon Lovett on Pod Save America, New York Democratic socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked for details as to how America would pay for her socialist dreams, such as universal healthcare and free college tuition. Although she spouted for roughly two minutes, the answer Ocasio-Cortez offered was this: she has no idea. Lovett prompted the descent into puffery and sound and fury signifying nothing by stating: We don’t talk about what defense costs; we’re about to hit a trillion dollars in debt because of the corporate tax cuts; yet when we talk about pre-K, healthcare, college, suddenly it’s unrealistic because of the cost. And it’s not just bad faith Republicans that make that argument; you hear it from Democrats as well. What’s your response to that? Ocasio-Cortez started like a house afire: “Well, I think it’s that exact same thing.” That makes it abundantly clear. She continued, “It’s that we… you know they say, ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ as though they haven’t used those same ways to pay for unlimited wars, to pay for trillion dollar tax cuts and tax cut extensions. They use these mechanisms to pay for these things all the time.” What “same ways"? What “mechanisms"? But we digress. Ocasio-Cortez waxed eloquent with more brilliantisms: “They only want to know — it just seems like their pockets are empty when we’re talking about education and investing in human capital in the United States: education, healthcare, housing, and investing in the middle class.” It would seem the students who want to game the system by getting college education for free are the ones with empty pockets while in her dreams the adults in the room have to ante up, and what she means by “investing in the middle class” is anyone’s guess, but she had more: All of a sudden, there’s nothing left. All of a sudden the wealthiest nation in the world, we’re just totally scarce. We have complete scarcity when it comes to the things that are the most important. She might want to visit socialist Venezuela for a look at “complete scarcity” of things that are most important, such as food. Ocasio-Cortez continued, "And so for me, I think it belies a lack of moral priority and it’s unfortunate." As opposed to making others pay for your dreams, which used to be called stealing. Ocasio-Cortez then rambled on: I think that — but I also think a lot of these folks, especially those perhaps on the Democratic side, perhaps they don’t even see it, you know? I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s a generous interpretation or not, but I legitimately think that they start kind of buying into conservative talking points. They get dragged into their court all the time. And I think it is because there’s this really myopic, and also, just misunderstanding of politics as this flat 2-dimensional left/right thing. And so they always feel like, “Okay, the Right says this thing. We have to respond to it.” And that’s why they’re winning. That’s why they’ve won for the last ten years, because they’ve dragged us onto their court. And we refuse to have our own strong message to force them to play defense on. In all that verbiage, did you see an answer as to how the young socialist would pay for her dreams? Didn’t think so. https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1026919316665450496
Poster Comment: Nutsy is a plethora of ideas. Get this gal in Congress! I have a five point plan to pay for these ideas: 1. um, yeah, Catch a leprechaun. 2. uhhhhh, harvest Unicorn Horns, and sell them. 3. um, we can like, you know, like, set up a task force, and stuff, searching for Genie's bottles 4. ♫ When you wish upon a star ♫ 5. um uh Scandivania! So clearly, these things can be paid for if we just, uh, prioritize, and stuff. uh,Ask Bernie!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-29) not displayed.
.
.
.
#30. To: Liberator (#26)
If I were a single dude, I’d bend her over the hood of a patrol car... and cross those crazy eyeballs of hers... but I’d not give her the time of her life, twice. She’s a loony kook.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I normally don't do rants cause with a lot of folks that's just their way of attempting to baffle with bullschitt, short and sweet is better. Where would all of these so called "successful" socialist countries be without America footing the bill for NATO and other defense programs? (I think we're about to find out). Maybe we should send them some of our minorities to go along with the Muzzy's they're importing and see how that works out for them? Oh wait, never mind that would mean we would have to up the timetable by 20 years for having to save them from themselves again. We're going to have to do that sooner or later and this would hasten the inevitable...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Speaking of retards...... Is This the Next Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Ayanna Pressley says the Democratic Party needs new blood. She’ll have to take down a popular incumbent to make her case. By JOANNA WEISS | August 12, 2018 A few weeks before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her New York congressional primary, Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley spoke to roomful of young Democrats at the Bell-in-Hand, a Boston tavern that dates back to 1795. She was explaining why she should unseat a congressman who, she suggested, might as well have been in office for that long. It wasn’t that her opponent in Massachusetts’ 7th District, 10-term Rep. Michael Capuano, had a voting record that was objectionable, or had neglected the district for a national profile—the standard complaints you hear in a primary challenge. Instead, it was a question of approach, of personal history translated to legislative priorities, of the value in filling Massachusetts’ only majority-minority district—currently served by a 66-year-old white man—with a 44-year-old black woman who has experienced the struggles of the inner city. Pressley talked, with a lyrical lilt, about growing up in Chicago with a single mother; her father’s incarceration; her survival of sexual assault. She said she’d draw renewed attention to the economic and social disparities within the district, the way income and life expectancy vary precinct by precinct. Rest of the article is at the link: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/12/ayanna-pressley- massachusetts-democrats-progressives-219352
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
The real world is one in which we have had Social Security, Unemployment Benefits and regulated working hours for 85 years, and government subsidized health care and food and housing support for the poor for 54 years. I live in the real world, and I support the parameters of the real world as they exist. The majority of people do. You are the kook out in the fever swamp pretending that I have to convince you of something in order to maintain the reasonable social safety net we already have in place. But I have already won this war. The status quo is what I want. I'd like it to be run BETTER, more efficiently, and more effectively, but the basic structure is pretty robust, if imperfect. So, I don't have to do anything but stand pat, and I already have 80% of what I want. You have pretty much 0% of what you want, but you scream and bellow at me AS THOUGH you were in power and your ideas ruled the roost. Actually, your belief system was defeated on the political battlefield and plowed under nearly a century ago. You bellyache and scream, which is your right, but the REAL world is the world I describe, and like - that you scream about AS THOUGH I were trying to persuade you to let it be put into place. It ALREADY IS in place. I've ALREADY WON this war. YOU are screaming and bellyaching like a defeated German or a defeated Confederate AS THOUGH I have to persuade you of anything. You insult me AS THOUGH I were appealing to you, trying to get something from you. Actually, my position is that I'd prefer to discuss these things rationally, but if you won't then FUCK YOU, KEEP HANDING OVER A THIRD OF WHAT YOU EARN, OR THE ARMED OFFICERS OF MY STATE WILL COME SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE. My side won, your side lost, and you WILL pay tribute, or we will put you in a cage. THAT is the REAL world. You will OBEY my moral imperativea, and you WILL pay heavy taxes to support MY moral imperatives, and I will give your views precisely FUCK ALL, because we won and you lost. THAT is the real world. I slum here with the likes of you to try to have a reasonable conversation, but you talk like somebody who is actually in charge, whose ideas are actually the laws. In the REAL world my ideas are the laws, and people who think like me are in charge. I don't hate you out of the box. I have empathy for your plight (real, not faux), and I would like to help you see why your position is too extreme, and why we can't go back to the sort of world you want. But you respond with such contempt, vitriol and hatred that finally I come to the shoulder shrug. Ok, you're miserable. You hate the real world. You're never going to calm yourself down. Fine. Just pay your taxes to keep my programs going, and I won't have to send the goon squad to shoot you. Capisce?
I haven't moved at all. I was Catholic, and I remain Catholic. I have always opposed abortion, for example: it is the killing of the innocent. And therefore I oppose the death penalty as we administer it, because we kill the innocent. I could support the death penalty if we had the protections in place that God put into place when he instituted it in Israel, but we won't, and therefore I oppose the death penalty. I was arguing those same positions in 1995 as a 1L in law school. I haven't moved at all. When it comes to war, I can support a truly just war, that is fought with the goal of swift and decisive victory, but wars of empire are not that. The Cold War against the USSR was a just war. The War on Terror COULD have been, but we turned it into a forever war for empire, and that renders it unjust. I have the same view of Social Security as Ronald Reagan - he was a lifelong supporter of it. If my tone has changed, it is because I've gotten more muscular in my reply to abuse of the things I believe. Also, I've gotten a lot more frank about being the adult in the room. Our society has by and large come down on my side of most things, so I am largely simply supporting the status quo. It is fine when people oppose the status quo. It is delusional when they pretend that their cranky opinions are the status quo. Cranky, delusional people are not shy about treating the people who disagree with them like shit. And hey, guess what, I can treat them like shit in reply too! It isn't as though they don't deserve it.
I have been this way all along, and I've never hidden the amount of God in me.
Jesus didn't say that so you don't believe it. You said you don't believe the Bible. Another Vic hypocrisy.
I guess I have to put up with your obtuseness as long as I post here. It is true: we are not bound to the judicial rules of the Old Testament, but they DO safeguard against killing the innocent - and Jesus DID say not to kill the innocent (or anybody else). So, we are not OBLIGATED to impose the Old Testament rules of evidence and trial, but we ARE obliged, by Jesus, to not kill the innocent. Our existing processes kill the innocent. By pointing to the Old Testament rules, I pointed to a set of rules that will prevent killing the innocent by mistake. True, we don't have to use those particular rules. We could come up with some other set of rules. I am content with the Old Testament set, because they would obviously address the issue, and also because I would assume that God-squadding bible-thumpers like yourself would not put up opposition to using a biblical standard. But it's true, we are not required to use those procedures. We DO, however, have to obey Jesus and not kill the innocent. Right now we kill the innocent, so I oppose the death penalty. You apparently don't like the Biblical standard, since you're attacking it (and attacking me for proposing it) - so you've knocked that out as a standard. Knock that out, and I'm left with Jesus saying not to kill, and no standard on offer to avoid killing, therefore I must oppose the death penalty absolutely. We can't kill the innocent, and you won't allow the Biblical standard for determining guilt. So we're left with no reliable standard I can think of. I still have the commandment from Jesus to not kill the innocent, so I'm left simply opposing the death penalty outright. If that's what you want too, then we're in agreement. I suspect that you very much want the death penalty to remain, because you're an un-Christian hard-ass who equates your right wing politics with what Jesus and the Bible said. So, you're going to want a death penalty that doesn't have the protections of the innocent that God's Old Testament procedures have, and you're going to support a judicial system that ends up killing the innocent. So, essentially, your politics trump Jesus and you think that's entirely reasonable and Christian because...you're an American Right Winger, and that's exactly the way you hypocrites reason. But the reasoning is flawed, and therefore unpersuasive, and the country keeps drifting towards me and away from you. Deus vult.
Yes he did. You said to shoot cz82 in the face if he resists theft. You worship yourself. You're not Catholic or you would believe differently. Not your acid trip raising lizards from the dead.
NO I am pointing out the blaring hypocricy of an arrogant hypocrite who speaks out of both sides of his ass cheeks. You said the old testament is a fable. Now you are saying we should use it. You are a goofball.
Why is it people always over exaggerate to "try" to make a point? I never said I wanted to kick all people off of subsistence. The point is there are "some" people who don't deserve to be on it because they don't want to be responsible. I'm only saying they should be made to be responsible just like you said I should have my money stolen from me at gunpoint to subsidize those folks. So what does the Bible say about stealing? Lets see: A man’s negligence which results in a loss to his neighbor. Exodus chapter 22 (verses 1-15) describes several acts of negligence which deprive a neighbor of his property, and which thus require restitution. Oh and here’s another one: He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need. (I just love Catholic hypocrites, maybe you need to brush up on what’s really in the Bible instead of interpreting it to say what you want it to say). You claim to like Trump and what he's doing so why not embrace his concept of creating jobs so that everybody who should be working, is capable of working or wants to work can provide for themselves and their families?? (He seems to want them to have the opportunity to be all they can be, don't you)? Why do you think he's also bringing back the work mandate for Welfare? (In your eyes just to be mean I suppose). Trump also wants to build a wall to keep even more lazy MFers out of this country, to keep them from sucking it dry monetarily. Is there something about those concepts that you don't like beings you're a Trump lover?? (Is it because it's about retirement time for you and you haven't prepared for it and want others to keep your lazy ass alive, or aren't they authoritarian enough for you)?? So how many people have died at the governments hands over the countless millennia thanks to your “perfect” system of government? (Which allows the crooked politicians to get richer and everybody else suffer because the politicians always morph it into full blown authoritarian/dictatorial/monarchial governments). How many billion is it now? 1, 2, 5?? You’re a historian you tell me… So who's the reasonable/responsible one here Vic, I’m not advocating for those deaths like you are?? BTW the only reason you think you've won is because people have found out that they can vote for and receive a free ride, and you’ve helped them achieve that. But sooner or later it will all cave in on itself (it always does/has) and there will be nothing to give those people you claim to want to help and they will die a slow, horrible, painful death. (You should be very proud of yourself)!! Now maybe you can see why I say your way is faux empathy but for some reason I doubt you will. P.S. I could tell you to go FO and die but then it would make me just as silly as you...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
More like plunging toilets for them, they're so full of shit at those places they need a full time bathroom attendant. Heh-heh... But more he was like *clogging* those toilets and working Over-time to do it.
His little ploy is he's smart and you're a stupid nincompoop. Yup. Exactamundo. Except the joke was on him. We'd seen it here...and at other forums (as at FR) -- these kinds of people will contact each other and call in Hyena-reinforcement in working to "gaslight" the opposition, people who indeed know exactly what's going on and onto the Group-Yoda act. Except here there was no one left to actually support Gilligan's One-Man ACLU Clown Show. And when his bullschitt ploy comes back to bite/haunt him it's time to runaway for awhile and hope people forget what happened. Sooner or later he'll be back as himself or with another pseudo name, they just can't resist. That's usually the trend, isn't it? He/they return...and...Sometimes people do learn and admit their errors. But it can't be faked or BS'd for long to those of us who've posted at these forums for a decade or two. Cred can't be redeemed if one can't admit they've been wrong. WE remember. Especially things like ACLU worship. Forum blackmail. Ridicule of the Bible WHILE also quoting it. And general hypocrisy and lies.
Maybe you're right; Maybe he's been hiding it. OR...maybe has recently just realized (or self-admitted) that the degree of "Socialist" acceptance/advocacy is much greater than he even thought. From my perspective, Vic's always been an enigma (he might even admit it); Solidly identifies conservative in certain ways, but solidly and decidedly LEFT in others. So where's that leave him of the political scale? Overall, probably Center. But that winds up allowing the Left to gain ground while undermining the Conservatism. Conservatism MUST increase, otherwise we know the USA WILL become full-blown Socialist (already the Dems are at the brink), and then comes the inevitable: Totalitarianism. And a hot CW2. The math is painfully easy for us to do, isn't it? For Vic -- who admits his degree of affection for our country and system vs "European" *is* divided -- maybe that's why he's more Socialist than Constitutionalist. All it takes is a love for anti government, and all the Paultards here or on LP will embrace you... as long as you hide your love for welfare, abortion, open borders and drugs. There are some extremely confused posters here who want it both ways...AND ALL WAYS. Without common-sense Law Enforcement we have a Portland OR/Berkeley CA type of nation. I am SICK of the daily dredged up isolated cases that broad-brush ALL of LE as petty, evil, over-officious bullies. It's intellectually and morally dishonest. AND worst of all, follows the BLM/0bama script of spreading HATE of cops and respect for The Law. Semi-Anarchists and Socialists only serve the OTHER SIDE. This is no time as you know to straddle the fence on Party politics. Especially with Trump (the "Independent" Libertarians and Conservatives were wishing for) at the helm fighting the fake Two-Parties (GOPe NWO puppets + Dem-Commies). Honestly, Ron Paul wasn't all that wrong on many things. He was surprisingly ahead of the curve on many; He KNEW long ago that our gummit's PTB (and those behind the scene) were a festering corrupt hell-hole pit of Globalists and Liars selling us out. But was dangerously naive in a number of crucial issues. Hardcore libertarians jumped on the band-wagon then took things too far into Anarchist territory.
There's actually a good chance that the entrenched Deep State and parent PTB (like ValJar, Brennan, the 0bama-Klinton NWO-Alliance like Soros) are subsidizing and fronting for nutjob Ortiz nutjob as well as ALL these emerging Democrat Party endorsed Socialists and Muzzies who HATE the USA (Have you noticed the HIGH number of radical La Raza-type and Muzzies (D) actually running for office??) She's nothing more than a female Obama (another community organizer) who preys on stupid people so they can reap the rewards and get rich. Obozo played it all the way to the White Hut and now lives off of rich Democrap donors who are still stupid enough to give him money even though he was/is a failure. EXACTLY. The Dems and their propaganda wing are desperate to find as many female 0bamas as possible: Ortiz-Crazed Eyeball Kook, Kamala Harris, etal "Communitah Organizing" at its most obvious. As with 0'Bammy (an elites' Manchurian Candidate if ever we saw one), they are hoping to heavily recruit that low-hanging fruit -- the sub-70 IQ demo along with the usual fake "disenfranchised"/"victim" demo, aka witches, BLM, Jihadists, HOMOs, self-loathing whites -- along with the flower of the Democrat Party: Mental deficient freaks, masochists and demon-possessed. Particularly annoying: 0bammy's life of celebrity and FREEBIES after having taking a wrecking ball to the USA. THIS guy has dome more to create this current atmosphere of daily derangement, hate and paranoia than anyone in history. (NOT including this treasonous fake MSM.)
Stop. You're killin' me.
I meant "rant" is the most complimentary way. YOU have been addressing and saying what needs to be said...on everything. It's almost as though our brains are tapped into the same sane, reality, truth-based source. It's...almost word for word. And like you, I have ZERO patience for the daily layers of lies being spewed from the Media (so-called "news" and sports) schools, talking heads, Hollywood, Commies, Socialists, BLM, ACLU, SPLC, feminazis, projecting hypocritical haters at every turn. They are ALL on the very SAME TEAM, with the VERY SAME GOAL: Take down the USA, our national Judeo-Christian heritage and traditions, capitalist system, and.... our Constitution. And at the root of ALL of this alliance: HATRED for God and HIS laws. The Secular Humanist World is one destined for Hell on Earth. Then Hell IN Hell.
I know what you meant we're cool.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
True. They want to be free to be a lazy POS and not be held responsible/accountable for their actions.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
I don't want it "Both" ways, and I'm not confused. I want it MY way. But I recognize that's not going to happen in any pure sense. Failing that, I want a set of compromises I can tolerate. Occasionally I'll say "If I were King..." and give MY way, but usually I skip all of that. I'm not going to get what I want, I know it, so why waste the time on it. Instead, I look at what is reasonably possible and practical in the real world, and try to stick within that bandwidth. Take any issue - you can pick it - and you will find this tension, between the perfect and the possible. I tend to write from the perspective of the possible, but most posters here write from the perspective of the perfect, as if they were King. Then they get really mad at folks who don't agree. I try for awhile, I play for awhile. Eventually I lose my temper and check out for awhile. The notion that I move around a lot is just not true though. I got banned from FR, long ago, because I criticized H.W. Bush for his handling of war and taxes. I haven't changed my mind about that at all. FR eventually moved over to where I was too. I haven't changed my view of abortion since 1977, when I had to write my first paper on the subject for 9th Grade English debate class. My view of the death penalty has been the same since I was a teenager. My view of taxation became more sophisticated once I studied the US and Euroepan tax laws, and realized how taxes are the central core of the very structure of the economy, and thought about the most equitable and least distortive methods of taxation (the answer is a gross wealth tax and the elimination of income and payroll taxes). I just don't change much, but I get accused of it. It puzzles me. I think what it is is that there are certain set-piece political beliefs that come as a package with party in the US. I'm an Independent. I see strength and weaknesses of both major parties. I have almost always voted Republican because the weaknesses of the Democrats have often been most glaring and worried me more, but I have none of the Republican partisan RAGE against Democrats, and I don't think that the Republicans are the bulwark against Communism or any such over the top rhetoric. That's just silly to me. So when I get targeted with rhetoric of that sort I just skim over it and ignore it. It's poppycock.
I'm not hiding anything. Americans are mostly four things: Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Democrat or Republican, and Middle Class. I'm Catholic, French, Independent, and European nobility. These are my inner identifications, and each cuts across the grain of some feature of American culture, and puts me outside of the mainstream and the norm. It does not mean I am conflicted, or confused, or hiding anything. I'm not particularly shy, and I generally think that my way of seeing things is better on all counts. Economically, precisely BECAUSE I come from the nobility (which America does not have), and the nobility is tied to religion, I have an economic view that simply does not exist among Americans - I think that it is a divine obligation for the uppermost classes to specifically shepherd, care for, be concerned with and move among, the lowest classes, the poor. It is not a choice - noblesse oblige. To be rich, American style, is not nobility. They are two different animals. Nobility simply doesn't exist in America, and that's fine - I wouldn't want to try to bring it here. There's no NEW nobility in Europe either - it is an artifact of a bygone era, but it is real, and it fuses economic concerns, political concerns and religion together in a way that simply does not exist among the democratic masses. What it means concretely is that I cannot simply dismiss the poor as lazy or drug-addled wastrels, or trash, or scum, or any of the harsh words used by the economically hard-minded. They are, rather, the weaker members of the clan, the lower orders of the tribe - they are part of the extended FAMILY - and it's the duty of those chosen by God to be the leaders of the tribe, through the superior natural abilities and fortunes that God has bestowed upon us, to make sure that nobody is left behind. We're not just civilians making money and living discrete lives, we're all soldiers in a vast cultural army, and we cannot leave any soldier behind, because that's wrong. My thinking in this parallels Prince Harry or Queen Margarethe much more than it does any American politician or thinker of ANY stripe, from far Left to far Right. Where you get it backwards is in thinking that I am "moving" somewhere or "diverging". My outlook on this is a hereditary one that goes back 800 years. It's 700 years older than either modern Socialism OR Modern Conservatism. I am not a modern man in this sense at all, and I look at the current sets of socio-political beliefs and see them as being deeply flawed and unrealistic, and forgetting the wisdom of the ages. But I do not forget, and I do not forget who I am either. So if you think you're seeing movement, what you are really seeing is your own relative motion relative to a fixed object: me. I am as constant as the Sun. I DO have a temper, and when inflamed by it I can start paring off the gentler and nobler aspects of what I believe - when at peace - and become this terrible warrior that will burn down the village and kill everybody to restore obedient order, but I have to be pressed to that - I don't start there. (And it is a constant of ALL forms of established order that survive, that in the end they defend themselves with very violent force and extreme prejudice against whatever is attacking, and they kill it regardless of its ideas, because the ideas cease to matter and preserving control prevails. This was true of God himself, in the Great Flood, so it is not too terribly surprising that creatures made in his image will ultimately kill everybody and everything in order to prevent order from being overthrown by chaos.) Politically, therefore, I do not accept the limitations of thinking of either the Democrats or the Republicans. A nobleman is a traditionalist who favors good order, military forces in particular - competent and obedient paramilitary forces (but with a very strong antipathy for corrupt and self-governing police forces or other banditti) - and who sees the virtue in devotion to duty, to the flag, to a code of conduct. Traditional sins, which is to say alcohol and sex, are winked at, and tobacco is an old enough sin that one can shrug one's shoulders at it, but harder drugs that destroy the mind are much more offensive - they destroy the tribe, the cousinage, the strength of the clan, the nation, from below. But the American Right winger looks at drug addicts as dirt bags and scum, while the American Left winger sees them as victims of racial and social injustice. I see them as damaged soldiers, whose addictions and demons weaken the potential armed forces of the nation - and rather than wanting to cut them off as trash, I want to dedicate the resources to patching them up and getting them back on the field, in the ranks as members of the fighting team (even if merely as toiling peasants whose usufruit pays for the more general effort). This is not socialism, or communism, or libertarianism or traditional conservatism. It's not on the spectrum of American thinking at all. I suppose it's feudalism, if a word needs to be given to it. To ascribe this to some sort of fickle aspect of my character is just missing the mark. I am really very steady and consistent in my core beliefs about everything, and I believe that what I believe in has been proved beyond the need of proof and tested in every climate for 1000 years. If you want to know my honest-to-God opinion on anything, ask me directly, and I will tell you directly. If you want to know why I think that, ask my why, and I will tell you why. If you think try to go jamming what I think or say into one of the petty, ill- thought-out contemporary distempers, like American Republicanism, or American Democrat party "liberalism", or "socialism" or "Communism", then you're always going to go wide of the mark, and you're going to be falsely accusing me of being fickle, of hiding, of being divided. I'm not divided. I am completely loyal to what I believe in. It's just that the major causes and organizations of our day in this country don't represent me, so I come across at odds with them. That's not because of me wavering around, it's because of the ill-fit of the Republicans or the Democrats, or American Christianity, or American economic and social beliefs, with the 13th Viscount of an obscure place in France. I'm not the moving object here. The times are. I am as fixed as that old stone fort in France that is named after me and mine. (I'm not named after it, it was originally built by us, and is named after us. This is a good analogy to what we are talking about, actually.)
Maybe in a fairy tale where you kiss mice and lizards and bring them back from the dead. Delusional. You're still an interesting guy and fun to read. Even good sometimes. Still delusional.
Not true. They are human beings with problems. You get a lot wrong about us right wingers as you call us. You look at right wingers as dirt bags. On more than one occasion you posted about the need to murder us all. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
I kissed nothing. The lizard and the mouse, one each, were in my right hand. I am who I am.
Perhaps I do. I agree, they are human beings with problems. And the officers, those of us appointed over them, have the duty to help them.
Most of them aren't bleeding hearts and that seems to be the problem. Self reliance/responsibility seems to be a 4 letter word with him.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Nope. Those things are great. But they cannot be carried to the extreme that you want to carry them. The right rule is: self-reliance and responsibility, and you will go far, have quite a bit, live a very comfortable life, have authority and respect, see the world, dine well, and look back on a life well lived. Eschew self-reliance and responsibility, and you will not go far, have little, live an uncomfortable life in drab, working class surroundings, have neither authority nor respect, see little of the world (and what you will see will be the grotty side of some run-down city, eat poorly and look back on a life of much suffering and loss. That is entirely reasonable, and that is what happens WITH social support. Remove social support, and the lack of self-reliance and responsibility will lead to homelessness, starvation, disease, and dying in the streets, as in all of the countries of the world where there is no social welfare support. Grinding poverty does NOT, in fact, act as a spur for people to climb out. It simply acts as a life-shortening, riot-provoking decay - the sprawling slums of India and the Third World. I do not speak of a social welfare state that is gold plated, such that those who do not exercise self-disciple and take on responsibility live like the middle class or upper class. I speak of basic working class conditions only, which are basic necessities, medical care, and an education permitting the determined to climb out. That is all. But you, when you say "self-reliance and responsibility" in the context of social welfare, you mean "have no social welfare", and let the poor starve to death if they won't work. Your solution would be the Third World. That is the difference between us - your lip is curled with hatred and disgust for the poor and the unambitious. You see them as worthy of experiencing extreme suffering and early death, and do not want to provide them ANY support, as that will make them lazy. I see them as unambitious peasants - capable of some manual labor but little else, but available as manpower for, say, a draft (if needed), and with the potential, among some of them, or their offspring, to rise. So, you would simply let them starve, but I say that does not respect God and that they need to have a basic working class life as a minimum. My way is more expensive in the short run (but produces a bigger economy and better-educated people in the long run) and much more humane. You scoff at the humanity. And on this website, from all appearances, most people agree with you and want what you want for the poor, but disagree with me and despise it - and despise me. Nowhere have I ever said anything that would allow you to assert that self- reliance and responsibility are a "four letter word" for me. I simply reject your assertion - and that of so many others here - that a basic subsistence level of material support, health care, and education, for everybody, is opposed to the principle of self-reliance or personal responsibility. I think it is an anti-Christian argument to say that it is. One guy said he was my friend here on this site. This would be a very good moment for ANYBODY reading this who agrees with what I have said to step up and say "Actually, I agree with him." Because here we are, in the middle of a thread created by the site master specifically to attack me, both as a person (delusional, liar, etc.) and my ideas. Plenty have chimed in in agreement, and nobody has stood on my side, which is the side of reason, compassion and, frankly, Christ. Now would be a good time to do it. If I were calling for "nationalizing the means of production" or some radical nonsense, it would be fair game to be calling me a socialist, or Communist, or whatever. I have done no such thing. All I have said is that it is necessary to provide a basic standard of living - working class dignity at least - to everybody, even the marginals at the bottom, rather than letting them starve in the streets. When even THAT causes me to be called some sort of Lefty pinko, well, it shows just what the Right is. Yes, Stone - this is what the Right is. If you don't agree, then tell me about the social welfare, medicine and education you think we DO need. Don't tell me all of the problems - I am well aware of them. Admit that, DESPITE the problems, we DO have to do it anyway, because right now all that anybody ever gives is problems, and that leads any reasonable person to conclude that, because of the problems, your solution is to do nothing at all, just "Let them eat cake" as Marie Antoinette famously never said.
Actually, we're not. That was a different, parallel thread, that I thought I was responding to.
This kind of applies to you. What I am saying is you are full of shit until you give up most of your wealth. Comprende hypocrite?
Are you a liar or do you have a reading comprehension problem? It is one or the other because he already told your pathetic ass that he isn't for no social welfare. Of course it is the governments job to take care of extreme things like famines and stuff like that. Joshua did it in Egypt. You're basically a socialist hypocrite. Do as I say not as I do.
Again you have a reading comprehension problem. Or are you semi retarded? I didn't start this thread.
Actually you said you don't believe in Christ or his Bible. You worship a man who calls himself holy father pope. An asshole fake and a liar who perverts Gods word. God said in the Bible if you don't work you don't eat. Don't bother responding I already heard your lies before.
If you don't want to watch the whole video start at about 10 min.
She has the look of a woman I wouldn't want to go sleep in the same house with her.
WHAT wealth, ignoramus? The wealth I might have accumulated since the theft has mostly been put into preparing an American Olympian and generally supporting the American team effort. I live plainly, in an old tract house, driving an 11-year old car. I eat simply. I have put my wealth into my offspring's head and heart, and into the US Olympic athletic effort. And some into poverty relief at the church. My net worth is pretty close to zero. You assume that I don't practice what I preach. Actually, I live almost completely in conformity to my moral beliefs. When it comes to matters of wealth and power, I am not a hypocrite at all. If you want to know my weakness, it is very specific and clear, and I will admit it is a fault. I still love the women I truly loved in the past. I don't still sleep with them, but I do truly love them, and I always will. This is adultery, as Jesus defines it. I can help what I DO, but I cannot help what I feel and think. So there, that is my true weakness. I very deeply love three women. I am married to one. I do not cheat in the flesh, but that's not Jesus' standard, is it? No, it isn't. I am incapable of ceasing to love without cutting my heart out and dying. So, there's my hypocrisy, my weakness, my sin, laid bare. If you want to criticize me for something of which I am actually guilty, call me an adulterer under Christ's standards, and you would be correct (under the standards of the law, you would not be). Trying to call me out on financial matters is funny, because you are so far off the mark it reveals more of your own guilty conscience than mine. God ensured that I do not have to worry about that by twice stripping a lot of money away from me and forcing me to live hand-to-mouth. I adjusted my desires downwards to the point where I basically eat the same thing as a bear, sleep without air conditioning, wear old clothes, live in an old house, drive a squeaky old car, and put my purse into my daughter's head, the US Team, and poverty relief. In short: Not Guilty, of that. Guilty of something else. If you're going to accuse me, get the charge right. I'm not greedy. I don't care about power or money. I don't pile up wealth. I use what I have to educate, motivate and help. My weakness is that I love too much. Attack me for that. It's legitimate. The other blows don't even land. They're whiffs at the air.
The Bible was compiled by the Church, not Christ. I do not worship the Pope. God never said that. Paul said that in one of his letters, and he was referring to a specific situation, not making a general law of God - which he did not have the power to make anyway. Because your religion equates the Bible to God, and therefore elevates Paul to the status of God, and because you misread Paul to say that the jobless must not eat (by divine commandment), therefore, you take the position that to feed the jobless is sin. And you really believe that what you believe is the will of God. Truly there is nothing for us to talk about. We have different gods. You believe fervently in yours; I know mine directly.
John 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Sure you do. You say he can over rule the Bible. You call him holy father.
God said he would preserve his word. I guess you think he is a liar.
God ensured that I do not have to worry about that by twice stripping a lot of money away from me and forcing me to live hand-to-mouth. You are the one who bragged you were in the top 1 percent and we could learn from you. We can learn from your example. I didn't say give where you have to live hand to mouth. I"m saying give as much as Jesus told the rich guy to give which was everything. You ware the one who judges people saying they need to give to the poor. Give to the government is what you believe in. Not giving to the Church. You equate the government with God and use old testament commandments which you say you don't believe in to say to give to the government. So you shouldn't be a hypocrite anymore. Sell all you have you have more then the rich man in the Bible had. Hypocrite. You want others to give and you say you do some olympic crap. Olympic crap is no excuse and isn't holy in the least. I call you out on this and only you because i am judging you by the standards you judge. Hypocrite.
Comments (71 - 93) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCan you believe this Commie-broad darling??
#31. To: Liberator (#23)
(Edited)
OUTSTANDING RANT!
#32. To: CZ82 (#29)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#34. To: CZ82 (#21)
The real world awaits you
#35. To: Liberator (#24)
He's been careening Left-ward rapidly.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#28)
I’ll submit that he’s been that way since you’ve known him... and there are quite a few more that purposely hide the amount of LEFT in them,
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
And therefore I oppose the death penalty as we administer it, because we kill the innocent. I could support the death penalty if we had the protections in place that God put into place when he instituted
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
Jesus didn't say that so you don't believe it. You said you don't believe the Bible. Another Vic hypocrisy.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
and Jesus DID say not to kill the innocent
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
But it's true, we are not required to use those procedures. We DO, however, have to obey Jesus and not kill the innocent. Right now we kill the innocent, so I oppose the death penalty. You apparently don't like the Biblical standard, since you're attacking it (and attacking me for proposing it) - so you've knocked that out as a standard.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Real world
#42. To: CZ82 (#27)
Back to washing dishes at his local ACLU clubhouse kitchen? HuffPo/DU forums?
#43. To: CZ82 (#27)
Some people have these little ploys they like to pull on other posters, I see it on every forum I've ever been on.
#44. To: GrandIsland, Vicomte13 (#28)
I’ll submit that he’s been that way since you’ve known him... and there are quite a few more that purposely hide the amount of LEFT in them...
#45. To: CZ82 (#29)
(Edited)
She's [Ortiz-Mao] just a good little drone for who knows who, someone is paying her way.
#46. To: GrandIsland (#30)
If I were a single dude, I’d... and cross those crazy eyeballs of hers...
#47. To: CZ82 (#31)
(Edited)
I normally don't do rants cause with a lot of folks that's just their way of attempting to baffle with bullschitt, short and sweet is better...
#48. To: Liberator (#47)
I meant "rant" is the most complimentary way.
#49. To: Liberator (#47)
And at the root of ALL of this alliance: HATRED for God and HIS laws.
#50. To: Liberator (#44)
There are some extremely confused posters here who want it both ways..
#51. To: Liberator (#44)
Maybe you're right; Maybe he's been hiding it. OR...maybe has recently just realized (or self-admitted) that the degree of "Socialist" acceptance/advocacy is much greater than he even thought. From my perspective, Vic's always been an enigma (he might even admit it); Solidly identifies conservative in certain ways, but solidly and decidedly LEFT in others. So where's that leave him of the political scale? Overall, probably Center. But that winds up allowing the Left to gain ground while undermining the Conservatism. Conservatism MUST increase, otherwise we know the USA WILL become full-blown Socialist (already the Dems are at the brink), and then comes the inevitable: Totalitarianism. And a hot CW2. The math is painfully easy for us to do, isn't it? For Vic -- who admits his degree of affection for our country and system vs "European" *is* divided -- maybe that's why he's more Socialist than Constitutionalist.
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
(Edited)
and European nobility
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
But the American Right winger looks at drug addicts as dirt bags and scum,
#54. To: A K A Stone (#52)
Maybe in a fairy tale where you kiss mice and lizards and bring them back from the dead.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Not true. They are human beings with problems. You get a lot wrong about us right wingers as you call us.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You look at right wingers as dirt bags.
#57. To: CZ82 (#56)
Self reliance/responsibility seems to be a 4 letter word with him.
#58. To: All (#57)
Because here we are, in the middle of a thread created by the site master specifically to attack me, both as a person (delusional, liar, etc.) and my ideas.
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
The right rule is: self-reliance and responsibility, and you will go far, have quite a bit, live a very comfortable life, have authority and respect, see the world, dine well, and look back on a life well lived.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
But you, when you say "self-reliance and responsibility" in the context of social welfare, you mean "have no social welfare", and let the poor starve to death if they won't work. Your solution would be the Third World.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Because here we are, in the middle of a thread created by the site master specifically to attack me, both as a person (delusional, liar, etc.) and my ideas.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
and nobody has stood on my side, which is the side of reason, compassion and, frankly, Christ.
#63. To: vicomte13 (#59)
#64. To: IbJensen (#0)
#65. To: A K A Stone (#59)
(Edited)
What I am saying is you are full of shit until you give up most of your wealth. Comprende hypocrite?
#66. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Actually you said you don't believe in Christ or his Bible. You worship a man who calls himself holy father pope. An asshole fake and a liar who perverts Gods word. God said in the Bible if you don't work you don't eat.
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#66)
equates the Bible to God
#68. To: Vicomte13 (#66)
I do not worship the Pope.
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#66)
God never said that. Paul said that
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
Trying to call me out on financial matters is funny, because you are so far off the mark it reveals more of your own guilty conscience than mine.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]