YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT YOU NEED TO REALIZE THAT YOU ARE NOT A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, AND YOU ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AN IDEOLOGY WHICH YOU BARELY UNDERSTAND AND SEEM TO HAVE MADE UP BY CROSSING THE LIBERTARIAN, REPUBLICAN, AND HYPOCRISY.
And you know it's true, otherwise you would not be angered and outraged to the point of immaturity. Seriously, all caps? That's annoying and it hurts my eyes. A few words maybe, but an entire passage? Wow.
WHAT!?! How do we oppress the poor? By giving them jobs and kicking them off of welfare? How is that oppression? By trying to make gangbangers into responsible adults out of the projects and not selling drugs or killing each other? That's real oppresion I tell you.
By allowing the rich to ULTIMATLEY MONOPILIZE AND PROFIT FROM THEIR ENVIROMENT OF LABOR AND CAPITALISM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE.
Oh, and get your political figures right. LIBERALS have the upper hand. Getting on that, liberals are the greatest threat. Closing Git Mo,
Nice try, CHENEY
increasing taxes and making government the top priority, NOT the people or they're so called 'Middle Class.'
I LULZ, not for your supposed *pownage* but for the stupidity of that. Making government too small to regulate and taking away public services funded by taxes is what PROPULSED THE UNITED STATES INTO A STATE OF ECONOMIC RECESSION.
They say they take from the rich to fill they're already filthy rich pockets.
BREAKING NEWS:
We tune you in live to the University of Basic Law where an expert team of highly trained political analysts, scientists, and economists working with NASA and the Russian Space Agency have determined that: Democrats, along with every other citizen, pays taxes.
Has anyone ever seen Ice Age? Remember the squirrel and the giant snowball going down hill? Same concept. If you take from the rich, the rich can't pay the supervisors and managers who pay the factory floor workers. You lose an entire branch right they're, and 500 people can't afford to feed they're families so that's 2000 people directly affected.
Except it doesn't affect families as much, since de-regulations have caused low salaries already. Besides, we've injected HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of moneyz into t3h banks and corporations [GM, BoA, Citi, etc..]
Remember the Romans, it takes one leader to destroy a country.
Rome declined over several leaders...and Obama has been in office for only 110ish days and you're already saying hes going to "TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNZZZ!!! YEEEE HAAWWWWW!!!!" and "KILLIN' WHITE AMERICA" and don't forget "SUPPORTIN TEH TERRISTS THEMS CAUSED THEM SPLOSIONS".
And you know it's true, otherwise you would not be angered and outraged to the point of immaturity. Seriously, all caps? That's annoying and it hurts my eyes. A few words maybe, but an entire passage? Wow.
We tune you in live to the University of Basic Law where an expert team of highly trained political analysts, scientists, and economists working with NASA and the Russian Space Agency have determined that: Democrats, along with every other citizen, pays taxes.
Can you comprehend very well? How do taxes help democrat's? They help politicians, which happen somehow to be rich. How does obama who is 47, make his first million already when my grandparents never made a million together? Politics and coming from a filthy rich background.
By allowing the rich to ULTIMATLEY MONOPILIZE AND PROFIT FROM THEIR ENVIROMENT OF LABOR AND CAPITALISM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE.
Which is why the government breaks monopolies up, which I fully support.
Rome declined over several leaders...and Obama has been in office for only 110ish days and you're already saying hes going to "TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNZZZ!!! YEEEE HAAWWWWW!!!!" and "KILLIN' WHITE AMERICA" and don't forget "SUPPORTIN TEH TERRISTS THEMS CAUSED THEM SPLOSIONS".
If your implying that I'm a hillbilly redneck, shove your stereotype BS up your (bleep). Yes and it took Rome only one leader in an already extremely weak society to destroy it. That's what happens when your complacent with barbarians (which we can compare to modern day terrorists).
Nice try, CHENEY
Taking out of context. Classic liberal Marxism. Sad...
Except it doesn't affect families as much, since de-regulations have caused low salaries already. Besides, we've injected HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of moneyz into t3h banks and corporations [GM, BoA, Citi, etc..]
And they're still laying people off. How does that make sense?
I LULZ, not for your supposed *pownage* but for the stupidity of that. Making government too small to regulate and taking away public services funded by taxes is what PROPULSED THE UNITED STATES INTO A STATE OF ECONOMIC RECESSION.
You know, Texas has one on the smallest governments in the south, and the most functional. Does that click in your mind? Big government=high taxes=bad. While Louisiana has one of the biggest and least functional. Explain that.
That gives them no excuse to oppress the workers in third world countries.
Do I have to tell you that some money is better than none. And your acting like everybody does it. It's not new, was not invented by America and is not super common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
Not in a serious conversation. And how was that funny?
Can you comprehend very well? How do taxes help democrat's? They help politicians, which happen somehow to be rich. How does obama who is 47, make his first million already when my grandparents never made a million together? Politics and coming from a filthy rich background.
Because presidents get paid, also, your grandparents didnt graduate from harvard and then run a billion dollar election which took two years and cost a lot of people a lot of time.
Because presidents get paid, also, your grandparents didnt graduate from harvard and then run a billion dollar election which took two years and cost a lot of people a lot of time.
Which was paid for (In part) by some very unfriendly people. Like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Alminenijad or however you spell it. He basically bought the presidency. But that's off topic. Now explain the rest.
By trying to make gangbangers into responsible adults out of the projects and not selling drugs or killing each other?
The system that forced these people to live in these conditions in the first place was created by corporatism.
If you take from the rich, the rich can't pay the supervisors and managers who pay the factory floor workers. You lose an entire branch right they're, and 500 people can't afford to feed they're families so that's 2000 people directly affected.
The rich will still be able to afford to employ these people. The only thing they'll have to cut back on is unecessarily ostentatious goods, not the employing of their personnel.
They help politicians, which happen somehow to be rich. How does obama who is 47, make his first million already when my grandparents never made a million together? Politics and coming from a filthy rich background.
I'll agree, I don't like seeing how much politicians make and still get other goodies. Still, its not like they just show up for a job interview. They put months, even years, of their lives into campaigning and in the end, they believe they earned a large salary after putting in so much work so that they can work.
That's what happens when your complacent with barbarians (which we can compare to modern day terrorists).
No, we can't. On one hand you have barbarians, which by the definition of the term are nothing more than low-intelligence brutes. On the other hand, you have terrorists setting up sleeper cells, one of the most brilliant ideas in modern warfare, and using religious ideals for motivation, something that is much more deadly than being motivated by being poor, or any other reason most barbarians fought against Rome. As for being complacent, do you really think that grand public gestures are really the best way to deal with terrorists? If you know about the operation, its not effective. That's why they're so many secret service agency's, to deal with threats like these without causing panic in the public.
Taking out of context. Classic liberal Marxism. Sad...
Actually, its not. The words you said are almost exactly what Cheney's been saying, so I have to agree with his statement, even if it is a little bit crude. Oh, and the Marxist comment...that's out of context.
And they're still laying people off. How does that make sense?
This isn't an instant fix. Take GM. They aren't selling cars anywhere near what they used to, thanks to the current economic crisis. If they continue production at the levels they were before the downturn in the market, they'd start taking huge losses. By cutting back on people and the number of cars they produce, they're saving money and also changing to meet the lower demand, which makes sense to any company executives. They don't see the people that are hurt by it though, they only see the money they're saving. If anythings going to come out of the stimulus, it'll have to be consumer confidence. Without it, all the luxury goods that were being bought are going to be ignored, and parts of the economy will fall. Maybe its a good thing in the long term though, because people may finally realize they don't need all the crap they thought they did and spend they're money on products that are actually needed.
You know, Texas has one on the smallest governments in the south, and the most functional. Does that click in your mind? Big government=high taxes=bad. While Louisiana has one of the biggest and least functional. Explain that.
You're basing functionality off what exactly? As for the high taxes=bad, you do of course realize that without those taxes the US would cease to be a superpower? Where would the money for the military come from? Where would we get money for health care and other things many people rely on to help them survive? Quite simply, high taxes might look bad for you on your level, but for America as a whole high taxes is good. Stop thinking of individual greed when it comes to taxes.
China does have different governments, I know. But strictly speaking, china declared itself a communist government, even when they are not. China's economy is moving towards capitalism and entrepreneur-ism, because china has become a trading partner with many countries.
China does have different governments, I know. But strictly speaking, china declared itself a communist government, even when they are not. China's economy is moving towards capitalism and entrepreneur-ism, because china has become a trading partner with many countries.
Well, if it is starting to become an advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods then that would mean it would be a socialist government. It might have said it was going communism, but really, it is an socialist government.
It might have said it was going communism, but really, it is an socialist government.
Obviously you don't understand china, or probably have never been there. I will tell you now, china has said they were a communist government since the initiation of "chairman Mao", it so not advocating cooperative ownership in the economy as I have stated they have a capitalist economy, meaning everything is private owned. Get it?
