Obama's Second Bill of Rights is coming

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





They don't own land and other material things?


Seriously?

Seriously?

No person in this country owns the land their homes or business sits on thank that genious idea to SOCIALISTS as in property taxes after all the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few.

And no other material things are usually bought on LOANS meaning they don't own them in either case.





They don't have the power to hire people or pay them well enough so that other people can own land and other material things?


Oh yeah with what the rules and regulations of Government lets them.




People on Social Security have paid in more than they will ever get back and some of us will never see a goddamn dime of it but we still pay it, so how about dropping that from the entitlement rhetoric?


Common misconception the simple fact is a person only pays 6% the employer matches that contribution that is collected for over 30 years the benefits received after that other entitlement is taken out from that first government check for that "free healthcare" where the difference is made up by
other people.

Rinse and repeat.

Private wealth creation is capitalism when people are making more from government than private?

Call it whatever ism you want but that is not capitialism.




Tell your billionaire friends to stop hiding their money off shore, tell your friends in the defense industry to stop buying politicians that vote for more war


For decades Americans hold money offshore for a valid reason because of the supporters of that most greedy welfare industrial complex.
edit on 30-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

There is a difference between EQUALITY of Opportunity and Equality of Station in Life by taking from those that have and giving to them that have not ("taking from each according to his means and giving to him according to his needs").



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



Unless Obama is proposing turning over all production in the US to it's laborers than it isn't Socialism, it's something else. What else could it be?



He tried!!

The UAW now owns @ 41% of Chrysler and 10% of GM thanks to Obama’s Auto Bailouts! It was payback for votes.

Yet another example of his socialist plan in action.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Seriously?

Seriously?


Seriously!



No person in this country owns the land their homes or business sits on thank that genious idea to SOCIALISTS as in property taxes after all the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few.


Yes they do own the land. Property tax has not one thing to do with Socialism. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, how does property tax have anything to do with that?



Oh yeah with what the rules and regulations of Government lets them.


Another side effect of Capitalism. When the richest private owners buy the rules and regulations that don't apply to them in order to keep the small guy, small and thus never a threat.



When people are consuming more wealth than they are paying that aint capitalism.


LOL! Read what you wrote then think about how ironic that is considering the camp you're arguing for.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Hmm never knew 41% or 10% of anything was ownership.
Stupid maths!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Yes they do own the land. Property tax has not one thing to do with Socialism. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, how does property tax have anything to do with that?


Sure don't pay property taxes lets see how long a person owns that land.




Another side effect of Capitalism. When the richest private owners buy the rules and regulations that don't apply to them in order to keep the small guy, small and thus never a threat.


They aren''t buying anything after all business move offshore




LOL! Read what you wrote then think about how ironic that is considering the camp you're arguing for.


The camp I am arguing for is what people use to call LIBERAL meaning freedom from Government.
edit on 30-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag
 


Hmm never knew 41% or 10% of anything was ownership.
Stupid maths!


Sure about that?

That "argument worked" for the Saudis owning Fox News.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



I'm losing track of the comparisons to what President he and his people most want to say he's like? Is it Lincoln, Roosevelt or Reagan? They'd have us believe, it seems sometimes, they are all interchangeable.


Titles are not important….intent is.

Regardless what you call it, Obama wants an entitlement society and he wants to rule it.

“The right to own a home”?? Isn’t that the kind of crap that gave us the Fanny-Freddie housing bubble fiasco?







Obama wants an entitlement society? Where does this crap come from? It is as bad as people tossing around the word socialist like they have any clue what it even means. It really gets old. Just once it would be nice to have some intellingent critisms of the President instead of the same old crap that has lots of neat buzz words but zero logic or facts to back it up.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by XPLodER
 

There is a difference between EQUALITY of Opportunity and Equality of Station in Life by taking from those that have and giving to them that have not ("taking from each according to his means and giving to him according to his needs").


i wonder what Jesus Christ (pbuh) would think about the distinction,

if jesus would wash the feet of the poor and break bread with them,
would he consider the rich being so well off and the poor so impoverished as "justice"?

as a matter of station?
as a matter of social class?
as a matter of opportunity?

did he say feed the poor (except any whom you deam lazy)>?

to build the largest middle class on earth and the most wealthy nation on earth there was a top tax rate of 70%

is this not the best way to allow for each to have the fruits of the success of the society?

after all capitalism can only survive when there is an affluent middle class.

what would Jesus do (pbuh)

xploder



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
What does the original post in this thread have to do with socialism? you said for anyone in doubt that Obama is a socialist and then you posted tons of information that has zero to do with socialism.

colour me confused



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag
 


Hmm never knew 41% or 10% of anything was ownership.
Stupid maths!


Like I said....he TRIED!

And even 1% is "ownership". The math is fine. Your understanding of business might be fuzzy.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 



Obama wants an entitlement society? Where does this crap come from?


From Obama!





It is as bad as people tossing around the word socialist like they have any clue what it even means. It really gets old. Just once it would be nice to have some intellingent critisms of the President instead of the same old crap that has lots of neat buzz words but zero logic or facts to back it up.


Well it’s hard to see examples when you skip the OP and go straight into running your hole.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
former

blog


lol



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You really have stop thinking that Socialism is the workers own the businesses, that is only one form.

There is a form of Socialism where the unions and/or government control the means of production.

Stop using that as an excuse to say Obama is not a socialist. He is.

edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
For those who have problems with "socialist" why is it such a "dirty word" don't see why the op is getting crap for the term usage after all:




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


How is the government supplying you with a house from someone else's money, freedom and liberty?

It's not for the person supplying the money.

Everyone is responsible for their own welfare and purchases. Guns are a purchase, we are not asking the government to pay for them.

You are way off on your attempted analogy.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


In the wake of blowing off the 4th amendment, the 10th amendment, and now the 2nd amendment, why on Earth do we want to add more amendments? We can't stop violating the ones we have.

A "right" to a job? A "right" to an education? This dude is taking empty campaign rhetoric and proposing we make it law. How is the government supposed to enforce this? Do they invent businesses to create the mandatory jobs? Why send people to college then? They can remain dumb as a stump and still "find" employment. Maybe we pay people to go to college and kill two birds with one stone?

This is the second most depressing thing I have read today. This was the first:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yeah, it's more gun control stuff, HuffPo even. I am not trying to derail but it seems connected. The author depressed me just as much as this Cass dude. They must be related. He tells me since I support the 2nd Amendment I must suffer from Infantile Castration Anxiety. Now Mr. Cass (via FDR) is telling me the government needs to make sure I am fear-free from old age or sickness.

Well, I must be a complete basket case. I have fear and anxiety aplenty I did not even know about. I have never bought into the whole Socialism push thing but it makes me wonder.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




The camp I am arguing for is what people use to call LIBERAL meaning freedom from Government.


I'm sure that's what you think you're doing. I think you could benefit from looking up all these policies and laws you hate so much and see who in the private sector is paying for them. Of course you won't though because the suggestion came from an anarcholibersocialcommie. I wonder what camp the founding fathers would be in, mine or yours?

A true free market is impossible under capitalism and guaranteed by socialism.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


It's not caring when the government steals it from you.

Charity is giving of yourself freely.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Completely incorrect. The only form of Socialism is worker ownership. State owned or private owned Capitalism with different masters, state master or private master. Obama is no Socialist, if he were I would have more respect for him than I do. He's Capitalism's bitch, Fascist light.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join