Obama's Second Bill of Rights is coming

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Sorry I don't need to bring in dead people to justify my position on anything why anyone did well





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


Wait what now?

A free market is a free market and a free market can only exist without government interventionism nothing in this life is ever guaranteed.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



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:


It’s just a red herring. They want to distract us and run interference while Obama cruises in the back door with socialism. I don’t care about these fallacious arguments anymore. They can carry his water or run interference all they want.

Socialism doesn’t work. Crony Capitalism doesn’t work. Marxism doesn’t work. No matter what label you put on Obama’s agenda, it’s still a misguided pile of dung like FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You do realize that if you don't pay your taxes they take your property right?

If you own it, but have to keep paying taxes to keep it.....who's it really?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Do you think Jesus would steal from the rich to give to the poor?

I think not.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Your right socialism doesn't work because they can't admit it they have ran out of money even after printing 10 trillion dollars more.;

M2 money supply:

www.usdebtclock.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
How can I say this?

...A lot of the things that FDR proposed actually make a lot of sense. I mean, with the technology we have these days, there's really no reason that anybody should have a need to go without.

There's no logical reason that we can't find a way to give everybody a relatively decent baseline. There is no reason that our people should be hungry, homeless, or otherwise destitute.

Those that want more than the baseline can go for it and get more. Those that don't? Well, that's less competition for jobs, and they still contribute because whatever money they get goes right back into the economy.

My biggest problem is this:

What rights am I going to have to give up for this? There's no reason that we can't have all that, but there's also no reason that I should have to give up my rights for it, either, even though I know that I will.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seabag
 


Your right socialism doesn't work because they can't admit it they have ran out of money even after printing 10 trillion dollars more.;

M2 money supply:

www.usdebtclock.org...


Instead of listening to Obama's audio books on CD they should read some Thomas Sowell and get a clue about where the country is headed.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


No, you are completely incorrect, you are parroting the party line.



Here is a quotation from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, in which Hoppe presents his system for classifying socialism into four major types: Analyzed in some detail are the particular disruptive effects that are produced:

(1) by a traditional Marxist policy of nationalizing or socializing the means of production, or rather, by the expropriation of private owners of means of production;

(2) by a revisionist, social-democratic policy of egalitarian income redistribution;

(3) by a conservatively minded policy of attempting to preserve the status quo through economic and behavioral regulations and price controls; and

(4) by a technocratically minded system of pragmatic, piecemeal social and economic engineering and intervention.


ancap.ca...

I can find you 100sof other references to prove the definitions of socialism, just because you BELIEVE there is only one type, doesn't mean it's true.



Socialism is a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the workers,

either directly through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the state,

and in which Egalitarianism or equality is an important goal.

Thus, under Socialism, the means of production are owned by the state, community or the workers (as opposed to privately owned as under Capitalism).


www.philosophybasics.com...
edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
This is why Obamas supporters keep saying he is not a socialist, because they have been lied to as to the definition of socialism.

It is quite clear to those with an open mind that Obama is a subscriber of state run socialism.
edit on 30-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 



There's no logical reason that we can't find a way to give everybody a relatively decent baseline. There is no reason that our people should be hungry, homeless, or otherwise destitute.


So you’re in favor of wealth redistribution? Well, you’re in luck - so is Obama.

The problem is this - when you support the government giving people goodies at the expense of others then you have no right to complain when the government takes your money and gives it to others…including themselves. At some point there will be no more "rich people" to take from. That is the point when the middle class completely disappears and we all become poor!! Then where will the goodies come from???

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



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Oh stop it, you bring up the founding fathers all the time.

There would be no need for a government to interfere in a free market if simple basic laws existed or some natural laws that are ignored, weren't.

One ignored natural law deals with exploitation. Really think about that word and all it's economic applications.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Come again?

I agree Ignoring natural laws is the problem

Supporting the creation and maintaining a dependency based society is a clear violation of natural law.and we have seen the fruits of that labor.

Bunch of people screaming bloody murder for government to come save them as Katrina,and Sandy as well as other current events.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
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.


you know,
the right to life liberty happiness and the american dream,

where the sick dont die in the streets,
where the poor and their children dont starve to death like in a third world country,

where jesus would want you to care about the suffering of the poor.

if america wasnt the richest country in the world,
you could look at the poverty rate and the un would announce a famine and start importing food aid to the people who are suffering.

if the gun culture was not so ingrained the people around the world would see the gun violence and declare that an un official war was going on

if you were in my country and looked at the fact that americans are more imprisoned than any country in the world,
infact not even stalin had as many prisoners in his gulags as america does right now

that 1% of americans hold the wealth of the nation (approx 40%) in tax free havens to avoid paying their fair share.

in my country the government has user pays health care and it costs a factor less in costs than your "capitalistic system"

how could our system out preform your system?

without customers with money to spend your economy is toasted,
all the rich guys in the world are not spending enough to drive the economy.

if you look at it, capitalism can only work if the workers can afford to spend money,
when the rich offshore it all money (the medium of exchange of goods and services) become scarce,

and people canot operate businesses, this kills the idea of capitalism

xploder



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Rather, it is you have that has been lied to about what Socialism is. The word only has one meaning. Others wrongly or intentionally obfuscate the word to associate it negatively. Dictators have used the concept but betray it's meaning.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



where jesus would want you to care about the suffering of the poor.


Are you REALLY making the case that Jesus would be a socialist??

You should be ashamed, sir.

Would Jesus legislate away a percentage of my salary for someone who chooses not to work?

Thessalonians 3:10-12:

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their own work quietly and to earn their own living."

I think you need to go back to bible study.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I don't know what's worse, that you people believe this corporate bought stooge really wants those things, or that you feel that people don't deserve those rights.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
I don't know what's worse, that you people believe this corporate bought stooge really wants those things, or that you feel that people don't deserve those rights.


Those things are not RIGHTS.

The RIGHT to a home?
The RIGHT to economic security??

What country (or planet) do you live in that establishes those rights??



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ghost375
I don't know what's worse, that you people believe this corporate bought stooge really wants those things, or that you feel that people don't deserve those rights.


Those things are not RIGHTS.

The RIGHT to a home?
The RIGHT to economic security??

What country (or planet) do you live in that establishes those rights??

It's hilarious. You're so against people being leeches, but ALL of those things are required for someone to have a job nowadays. You won't be hired if you don't have a residence. You won't be hired if you don't have an education. And the first 2 directly ensure people have to work. Those rights ensure people are NOT leeches. You have to look at the whole picture, not one part of it. Those rights are all about getting people to be productive members of society.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by XPLodER
 



where jesus would want you to care about the suffering of the poor.


Are you REALLY making the case that Jesus would be a socialist??

You should be ashamed, sir.

Would Jesus legislate away a percentage of my salary for someone who chooses not to work?

Thessalonians 3:10-12:

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their own work quietly and to earn their own living."

I think you need to go back to bible study.




you equate this

where jesus would want you to care about the suffering of the poor


to mean this?????????

Are you REALLY making the case that Jesus would be a socialist


no i am saying how can you been a Christian and not feed the poor?

political idealism aside, only you have twisted the two,

how do you reconcile being a christian, and letting the poor suffer?

DONT TWIST MY WORDS PLEASE

xploder



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Those things are not RIGHTS.

The RIGHT to a home?
The RIGHT to economic security??

What country (or planet) do you live in that establishes those rights??


well in nz we have these things,
and im sure Sweden has them too

ps we are NOT socialist and to declare my country as such would be considered trolling by anyone here who lives here or understands the concept of a functioning society

xploder





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join