# Oh, those tolerant liberals



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Not.



> Bristol Palin receives death threats before 'Dancing with the Stars' finale, ABC increases security


We always hear how tolerant liberals are, yet the truth is they are much less tolerant than conservatives. We always hear how civil they are yet they had to outlaw throwing feces at the democrat convention in Denver. Do they believe in evolution because they are the missing link? They are not the champions of tolerance, they are the champions of blind hate.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Nope!

He got the "left" out of his mind a long time ago... he got wiser with age :wink:

....your day will come. Conservatism is like religion. Almost everyone embraces it.....eventually


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks csquare, some questions are simply to childish for one to answer themselves. I think when things get beyond reason Prairiewind is simply here to insult. It's the liberal way and we should be happy he is showcasing that for us. What we say can not be nearly as convincing as him providing an example directly related to the subject. What a gift.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You did not like said assessment.


The assessment didn't bother me at all. I took it with a grain of salt. Everything is going to look far right from your perspective. If you look back four or five years you will see we have gone through this very thing before. Your a stranger here, and assume way to much. 
I'll send you another PM and explain what is insulting and what I don't like.

You see PWind I'm not loosing my mind I am pointing our the mindless hate liberals have for Palin. Hate so deep they would threaten to kill her daughter because they do not like her. It boggles my mind that they would be willing to take the life of someone innocent to hurt someone who has done nothing to them. Who is loosing their mind PWind? I would say those who would kill innocent have lost their mind. I didn't answer your first response, because I took it as you simply doing much the same. Insulting simply to be nasty because it gets you off or something.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman, if someone or some group targeted Nobama's family PWind would be crying to the ceiling about the haters! The simple fact is that you will not get through to PW for one reason. He is still sucking at tht teat and does not want to be weaned. Life is comfortable when others are providing. It is clear that is the case based on his positions and comments. He will of course deny it, but time will prove me right!

On another forum, one particular person was very much like PW, but once he started making some decent money realized what most of us have been saying. Found out as well that his family insurance went up 17% because of Nobama and that the company he is working for is going to likely drop insurance all together forcing him and others into the non group pool and that now the cost will all be his 70% increase for the family.

So it will some day get better.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

PW. i'm not real good with words so i'll just put it point blank. you and your kind REALLY are not gonna change anybodies minds here. however, the likes of Plainsman and others have probably turned some of you libs around. you are on here for one reason and that is to disrupt (read piss off) people. we had someone JUST LIKE YOU a couple years back. he's gone now because he could'nt stant the heat. are you getting hot . global warming and all oke:


----------



## tucker (Nov 25, 2005)

i am another one who doesnt thing plainsmans lost his mind,,,i think he should run for public office,,,and straighten a few things out,,, as far as trying to reason with a liberal,,,you cannot,,,when they lose an argument,,which is always,,,they threaten to kill you or harm your kids,,,or go on a rant about how stupid someone is,,,,just a bunch of hypocritical morons,, really what kind of person makes fun of children with specials needs like obama has done,,,and who in their right mind threatens another man or womans kids because of politics,,liberals do,,,if liberalism is so great why are our indian reservations such a mess,,,liberals are taking advantage of a whole race of people and dont give a damn about them or their well being,,,,its also a great example of socialized medicine,,,,,i dont see anyone running to a res to get treatment,,,but they expect these poor people to live in squalour,, just for votes,,,,,arent these liberals just grand,,,


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Prairiewind said:


> tucker said:
> 
> 
> > i am another one who doesnt thing plainsmans lost his mind,,,i think he should run for public office,,,and straighten a few things out,,, as far as trying to reason with a liberal,,,you cannot,,,when they lose an argument,,which is always,,,they threaten to kill you or harm your kids,,,or go on a rant about how stupid someone is,,,,just a bunch of hypocritical morons,, really what kind of person makes fun of children with specials needs like obama has done,,,and who in their right mind threatens another man or womans kids because of politics,,liberals do,,,if liberalism is so great why are our indian reservations such a mess,,,liberals are taking advantage of a whole race of people and dont give a damn about them or their well being,,,,its also a great example of socialized medicine,,,,,i dont see anyone running to a res to get treatment,,,but they expect these poor people to live in squalour,, just for votes,,,,,arent these liberals just grand,,,


My first response after reading this was blowing my morning coffee thru my nose in laughter.

quote]
are you sure you did'nt mean Latte :rollin:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

So, let me get this straight.... Bristol Palin gets a death threat on Dancing with the Stars, we people assume that it is liberals doing so? Plainsman, you know the political leanings of the people doing the threatening? You know what organizations they belong to, how they view the role of the federal government, and how they voted in the last election? If you do, please call the FBI.

Talk about generalizations!

What if they are just everyday nutjobs? What if they haven't voted in 20 years? What if they are infatuated with one of the other contestants like Hinkley was infatuated with Jodie Foster?

This just proves the point that I have been making on this board for years. For many of you, anybody that you don't agree with is a "liberal". Anybody who you perceive as an enemy is a "liberal". You guys are like Don Quixote. You've demonized liberals so much and worked yourselves in to such a fervor that you have forgotten what you are fighting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What if they are just everyday nutjobs?


 I said liberal didn't I? 

Who hates Palin? Our experience right on this form tells us that. Ryan and Prairiewind hate Palin beyond any information they have. They hate her beyond reason. Remember all of Ryan's disinformation? Ryan loved all that wrong information he was getting from his hero gay blogger in Alaska. I suppose we will actually never know since if it was a liberal the media will say nothing. Example: Palin slips and says North Korea instead of South Korea and the media goes nuts. Whoopeee, big deal. Obama says he campaigned in all 57 states and we hear near nothing. It was much more significant because it may show some insight into the mans thought since there are how many Muslim states? 57 if memory serves me right.

I'm not a gambling man, but I wish we knew for certain and you and I could put $100 on it BigDaddy. If we could get the truth I think I would have your money.

Oh, ya, remember how Ryan hated her kids too? He posted all kinds of bs about any one of them he could. He got shot down hard to, with the truth.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

John Hinkley tried to kill Ronald Reagan. Was he a liberal? I don't think that anyone knows. It was revealed that he tried to kill Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Now it seems as though folks jump to conclusions.

My point is this... Our country is being portrayed as conservatives and liberals. Or, according to many on this board, liberals and "everybody else". However, I think that the true, hardcore conservatives and liberals represent a very small margin on each end of the political spectrum. The vast majority of us are moderates someplace in in the middle.

The problem is that folks continue to use labels that do nothing but divide us and put us into one of two camps. We can't unify and solve our problems if people keep doing that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The problem is that folks continue to use labels that do nothing but divide us and put us into one of two camps. We can't unify and solve our problems if people keep doing that.


I don't want to unify with liberals. The last election says the people don't want to compromise with liberals. The Tea Party does not want to compromise nor unify with liberals. I want to run over the fool liberals in Washington. Send them all packing next election. They are to stupid to understand what happened last election.

It may come as a surprise to you BigDaddy, but I don't put you in that far left group. Now if I could just talk you into looking into some new churches and not swallow the political garbage the ELCA puts out.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I don't want to unify with liberals.


And therein lies the problem. In case you know it, those "liberals" that you despise so much are not Russians or Koreans or Iraqis. They are Americans. You are saying that you are not interested in unifying with your fellow Americans. Interesting lesson in patriotism. With adults like that to emulate, it is not surprising that patriotism among our young people has decreased so much.

Your statement is a perfect example of why we have such a split in our country. Most people to the left of the political spectrum ("liberals") want to find unity in our diversity. They realize that a group with diversity is stronger than a group without it. They agree to disagree with others as an attempt to coexist and work towards common goals. In their view, an ideal population is heterogeneous, not only in its ethnic and religous make up, but also in its ideas and philosophies. They want opposing views brought into discussions in hopes of making the final work product more inclusive and stronger.

What's the message from the right of the political spectrum (the "conservatives")? They don't want to find unity in our diversity. Instead, they want unity through elimination of that diversity. Their new Senate majority leaders states publicly that his goal is to make sure that the President is not elected in two years. He has no intention of working with democrats or the White House. They see comfort in becoming more homogeneous. They can't or won't agree to disagree.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in this? You and others criticized the democrats for forcing healthcare down the throats of Americans. You accused democrats of not working with republicans, even when meetings were called with republicans and the final bill included many republican proposals. However, at those meetings, republicans stated outright that they did not want to negotiate. Oh boy, that sure makes democrats want to work with republicans.

If this is they type of government that you want, an "us versus them" government, then I shudder to think what the next decade will look like. Neither side will negotiate. Both sides will lock in, wait until they get enough votes, and force their extreme agendas through.

Who gets hurt in all of this? We do. Every U.S. citizen does because they are sitting back, waiting for their representative government to do something, watching each party chuck rocks at each other, and continuing to get angry.

What is the agenda of conservatives like yourself? Do you want to govern to recreate that Normal Rockwell scene with the White family bowing their heads at the Thanksgiving table? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 1950s are gone. Our population in the U.S. has doubled since the 1950s. Around 81% of our population now resides in cities, non-Caucasian races now make up over a third of the population, and our population gets older and older. We are anticipated to reach a population of over 430 million by 2050. Where's that growth going to come from? Well, right now 45% of children under age of 5 are in a minority group.

The only way to govern with the rapid changes that we are seeing in our demographics is to understand and consider those opposing views and philosophies. Why? The simple reason is that as we become more and more heterogeneous, there are more and more of those opposing views and philosophies to consider. And, lest we forget, those opposing views will be coming from Americans, because those persons will have a vote that matters just as much as yours.

You see those opposing views as "liberal" and something to oppose and/or fear. I simply see opposing views as different and something to understand. Once I understand them, then I will decide whether they have merit and whether I will support them, oppose them, or somehow incorporate them into my views through compromise. In a nutshell, that is the difference between social conservatives and liberals.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Big daddy, when a view is wrong, it is wrong period and liberal socialist ideals are wrong. Thus why would you compromise with them.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

wow BD. that was alot for me to absorb. had to go through it twice. i have plenty of family members who are far left libs and basically can't stand being in the same room with them. hell, i won't even go to xmas dinner to my mothers if some are coming. repubs don't want to join with libs because their policies are just wrong. if something is wrong, i won't compromise 1 bit. in the end though, years from now, i think the libs will win out. its called un- selected breeding and good lord knows theres lots of it going on. tell me BD. tell me BD. over-all who do you think has more common sense about life in general. a lib or a conservitive??


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> tell me BD. over-all who do you think has more common sense about life in general. a lib or a conservitive??


My answer: Neither

I have friends that are liberal and friends that are conservative. Neither side is more or less inclined to know how to change spark plugs, how to set up a decoy spread, make a good batch of chili, to get inside if it is raining, to keep their snowblower or mower in good working order, tie a square knot, balance a checkbook, do chores, or do any other thing that takes common sense.

The only difference that I see is that several of my conservative friends are Yankees fans, and that makes me question their common sense.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Here is something else to think about:

The U.S. population in 1790 was a little less than 4 million. In 1900, it increased around 76 million. In 1950, it was 151 million, and it is now at 309 million.

I understand the "just leave me alone" platform of conservatives. You want to be left alone. Buy some property, do what you want on the property, pay as little taxes as possible, and co-exist with others by basically spacing yourself apart enough or respecting property lines enough that we all get along. That philosophy worked in 1790 because we had enough space that you could always move further out into the boonies to get away from people if you wanted to. It worked in 1900. It even worked in 1950 because you could always live in remote areas like ND, northern MN, or someplace similar.

We are now running out of space. Where you gonna move? Alaska? The Yukon?

As the population reaches a tipping point, there is no "just leave me alone" platform because there are very few things that we can do that don't affect others. How do we co-exist? We have to pass laws and regulations that describe how to co-exist. That's called bigger government. All those people on the same area of land start to question supplies of things like clean water and clean air... more big government. All those people start to degrade the infrastructure faster than in the past, so we need to build bigger and better roads and bridges. More big government.

This is why the liberal platform rings true in urban areas like major cities and the coasts. Those "blue" areas have already accepted the fact that you need somebody to keep the peace with an increasing population density, and they are willing throw money into the hat to pay for those services. they also realize that to co-exist in such a diverse population, you can't favor any one ethnic group or religion.

Those in less populated areas keep fighting to keep a "just leave me alone" world, but I think that you really need to question your end-game. Again, what is your goal? Do you want to cut the population back to previous levels and throw up a wall around the country just so that population densities allow you to remain isolated?

You call it a liberal platform. Maybe it is just a platform to co-exist with a few hundred million other U.S. citizens.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And therein lies the problem. In case you know it, those "liberals" that you despise so much are not Russians or Koreans or Iraqis. They are Americans. You are saying that you are not interested in unifying with your fellow Americans.


The far left is more like Russians, North Koreans or Iraqi than fellow Americans.



> It worked in 1900. It even worked in 1950 because you could always live in remote areas like ND, northern MN, or someplace similar.


 If Obama gets us into a revolution it could work again, and with a lot less liberals. 



> i think the libs will win out. its called un- selected breeding and good lord knows theres lots of it going on.


First good news, then bad news bearhunter. Sure a liberal will bread with a snake if you hold it down for them, but they also kill their offspring. They have strong reproductive efforts, but poor production. That can only lead one direction, extinction. It isn't all good news though. I see America a hundred years from now being 50% Spanish 30% black, and 20% white. To see our future one only needs to look at South Africa where they are killing white farmers to get their land, or Mexico where corruption runs rampant. The only good news is it will take three times as long to happen with conservatives instead of liberals in Washington. If you don't think turning into South Africa is possible look at the racism we seen in the election for Obama. It is the only explanation for such a landslide for him among blacks. They didn't care about how unqualified he was, only that he was black, and he was going to buy them cars and pay their rent, all from his stash.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

Every time I see your avatar and a response like the one above, I recall my elementry school lessons about mercury and Mad Hatter syndrome. Please tell me that you used another method to preserve your hat.  You're losing it, man.

Sorry, but ever American's vote matters, even those on the far left. You rally against a lack of tolerance by liberals (without any proof that the death threats came from liberals, by the way) and then issue statements like the one above.

Your conundrum is that you know that the conservative platform is inheritently flawed because it is rooted in the status quo, while people and cultures constantly change. You also know that the conservative agenda depends on demonizing the opposition and using emotion over fact. Problems arise when others see through your labels (such as "fellow American"). I gather that "fellow American" in your mind means, "fellow conservative American".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I gather that "fellow American" in your mind means, "fellow conservative American".


Soitanly :laugh: oke:


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

my point exactaly Plainsman :thumb: . i like your hat.  . BD.in your opinion, who is happier in general, those who live in CA,NY,IL,OH OR THOSE THAT LIVE IN N.D,WY,MT?? and why??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> i like your hat.


It were kindof shiny till I sucked the mercury out of it.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > i like your hat.
> 
> 
> It were kindof shiny till I sucked the mercury out of it.


ai'nt no tin foil in your hat :beer:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> BD.in your opinion, who is happier in general, those who live in CA,NY,IL,OH OR THOSE THAT LIVE IN N.D,WY,MT?? and why??


I do not have any friends in CA, NY, IL, or OH, so I have no way to gauge happiness there. I will say that I spent several years in Madison, WI while attending graduate school there. This is one of the most liberal cities in the country, and I found that most everybody was happy that I encountered.

I also have friends in WY and MT, but can tell you that they are generally unhappy. Every time that I talk to them, they talk about how the world is going to heck due to the federal government trying to reign in with more environmental regulations. They are angry, not happy.

In all honesty, an outsider visiting this board would gauge that the majority of members are unhappy. Most every post is negative.

I think that there are happy and unhappy people most anywhere. I tend to focus on what's important... my friends, my family, enjoying a good day at a duck slough with my dog, reading a good book, or having a nice bourbon. I'm generally happy. My conservatives, on the other hand, are not. They are very angry.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I will say that I spent several years in Madison, WI while attending graduate school there. This is one of the most liberal cities in the country, and I found that most everybody was happy that I encountered.


Does that include happy when they were not high? 

I tend to focus on what's important... my friends, my family, enjoying a good day at a duck slough with my dog, reading a good book, or having a nice bourbon. I'm generally happy. My conservatives, on the other hand, are not. [/quote]

I read the first part of that and thought wow he is just like us, except for the bourbon that would leave me spitting for an hour. Then I read the last sentence and realized it's just more liberal bs. I'm happy, my friends are happy, so I can only think you make this crap up. Unhappy conservatives, boy you have an imagination I'll give you that. Simply because we observe many things wrong with liberals doesn't mean we are unhappy. One must remain vigilant of stupidity. It's as much a responsibility as a citizen as voting. Actually since many liberals are in la la land they shouldn't vote.  My brother who is over 70 has a shirt that says "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers". The last presidential election proved that correct.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BD now I understand why you think the way you do. Mad Town is the little San Fran east of the Mississippi as is the UW! It has warped the thinking of many a good men and women.

Statestreet,discounting the bars, one only has to look at the businesses on it to garner and understand this. I would say now with the economy that there are a lot of unhappy people in Mad Town and down the road along I94. The Gov handouts are ended or ending and it has them unhappy. In general though the state is pretty conservative outside the Madtown Milwaukee area. These regions of the state are doing OK, are happy.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I read the first part of that and thought wow he is just like us, except for the bourbon that would leave me spitting for an hour. Then I read the last sentence and realized it's just more liberal bs. I'm happy, my friends are happy, so I can only think you make this crap up. Unhappy conservatives, boy you have an imagination I'll give you that.


This is BS. Have you observed conservative talking heads on Fake News, CNN, Headline News, or the other channels? Have you listened to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush, Sean Hannity, and their ilk? They are all about anger. Have you read some of your posts on this site or those of your fellow conservatives like hunter9494, zogman, or floortrader? It's all anger and unhappiness.

The entire conservative platform to motivate voters is based on eliciting fear and anger. Do you not see this? What issues motivate conservatives to vote? Fear of muslims. Fear that somebody is going to knock on your door and take your guns. Fear that you'll have to see a gay couple in your church. Fear that an openly gay guy will be in your platoon. Once they get people fearful, they get them angry. They show pictures of aborted fetuses or buy billboards with cute little infants to get people angry over abortion. They get people angry at the prospect that their hard-earned dollars will support an out-of-work bum on the street (of course, they don't try to elicit the emotion of compassion for that person or remind folks that that bum is a human being).

The conservative platform is built on emotions, principally on the emotions of fear and anger. Take this away and the conservative platform is empty.

Fear and anger are not emotions of happiness. If you still think that conservatives are happy, you're nuts or being less than honest.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

BD.form my observations, conservitives are way more happy about life in general. maybe because they know the meaning of hard work/$. and if things go wrong, the know the've done their best. libs don't seem to care one way of another. as for the fake news ancors being mad, ?? really, have you watched Chris Matthews. now thats a P.O.S. ancor


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I think that there are happy and unhappy people most anywhere. I tend to focus on what's important... my friends, my family, enjoying a good day at a duck slough with my dog, reading a good book, or having a nice bourbon. I'm generally happy. My conservatives, on the other hand, are not. They are very angry.


Except for the duck slough and bourbon you can find that kind of happiness in prison, it's what's going on outside your inner circle that the rest of us are unhappy about. I'm in IL, and even though those around me brought the rest of you this narcissistic power junkie, I can say without hesitation not many of us here are happy. I *AM* angry. I'm angry that the values that used to be commomplace are now considered "radical". I'm angry that we are being invaded from the south and all my gov't is willing to do is post a warning sign. I'm angry that the second amendement is written in a way a 5th grader can understand it's intent, but 4 of those selected to protect that amendment as well as the rest just don't get it. I'm angry that our country is broke, and the only solution they seem to be able to come up with is to jump into bed with China...and print money like Parker Brothers. I'm angry that Mayor Bloomberg can issue a press release falsely stating 90% of illegal arms in Mexico came from the US and the mainstream media will repeat it with no attempt to verify or correct. I'm angry that *ONLY *75% of Americans are upset about the NYC mosque issue, and even more angry that my govt doesn't seem to care about the 75% who are. I'm angry that when a liberal uses the word "compromise" what they really mean is the rest need to conform to their way of thinking, and I'm also angry they didn't learn that word until the democrats became the majority.

So yeah, we're angry all right. But remember, the people in this country were a lot happier as a whole when the right people were ****** off...and didn't take any crap from anyone. I think just the shear number of baby boomers is evidence of "happiness" the likes of which we may never see again


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquare you make a good point those things tick me off also. Maybe liberals are happy because they have no idea what is going on. You know the old saying "ignorance is bliss". In that event BigDaddy may be right about liberals being more happy. I was just thinking about being happy in general, but your right at the same time I am very ticked. I'm ticked that the jerks that are ruining this country are sucking up perfectly good oxygen.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Have you observed conservative talking heads on Fake News, CNN, Headline News, or the other channels


Olberman, Maddow, and the like sit back and make assumptions and use a lot of we know better or sarcasm too. The talking heads are nothing but pro-wrestlers. They make their money stirring people up and using half truths and their own personal spin. On both sides.


> they talk about how the world is going to heck due to the federal government trying to reign in with more environmental regulations. They are angry, not happy.


Your friends are right. The EPA is completely out of control, corrupt, illiterate, and they need to be completely shut down and stripped of their power. It is BS that they can make unilateral decisions that have such a huge impact on our economy and way of life. These hogwash (keeping it PG 13) TIer 4 Emissions Standards, the shutting down of almost all domestic Phosphorus (fertilizer) mines, cap and tax, etc are all examples of why the liberal mentality is going to make us a third world country.

There are a lot of moderate dems who were just blown by in 2008. Obama is an idiot for going with a liberal agenda, Clinton made the same mistake and it cost him, just like Obama. Then in an unprecedented move of stupidity they make Pelosi the minority leader. Independents control the elections, the liberals have cost the independents for a long time. Unless repubs are as foolish as the libs and go too far right.


> Those "blue" areas have already accepted the fact that you need somebody to keep the peace with an increasing population density, and they are willing throw money into the hat to pay


Not exactly, they are always willing to take from the hat first. Then worry about who is going to pay the piper later, kind of reminds me of the suitcase of IOU's in Dumb and Dumber. The shining example of this is Obama's cabinet and failed nominations, how someone can be in any position of power that doesn't pay their taxes is beyond me. :eyeroll: Another example is the civil lawyers who are a huge part of the liberal end of the democratic party are willing to sue for it, leading to more laws, thus creating higher expenses for the rest of us. These people are not throwing money in, they are taking it from others, lining their pockets with most of it, then giving some to someone else and patting themselves on the back.


> And therein lies the problem. In case you know it, those "liberals" that you despise so much are not Russians or Koreans or Iraqis. They are Americans.


The actual problem is that these liberals and urban types fail to comprehend is that the Federal Gov't is not supposed to be this big. The framers stated that several times. Small Federal Gov't that looks out for the rights of the citizens. Their function was to protect the citizens from state laws, now we have the states trying to protect us from the feds. Exactly the opposite of what make this country great. That is why you hear a lot of people saying, accurately, that liberals hate America. The works of the Framers and the Constitution is America.

You get both parties manipulating this though. Wall Street and Corporations (who are now in Obama's back pocket)love to take money from the feds but don't want to follow even the most basic regulations, or pay the taxes they are supposed to pay and have already charged the consumer for. Liberals want to control (disarm) and micromanage every one, especially in the urban areas and make them reliant on them. Buying votes. Liberals buy them through handouts, Repubs just get paid for their votes. 


> Most people to the left of the political spectrum ("liberals") want to find unity in our diversity. They realize that a group with diversity is stronger than a group without it. They agree to disagree with others as an attempt to coexist and work towards common goals.


Have you been sleeping for the last 2 years? Liberals have done anything but this. It has been their way or the highway. Healthcare, Lack of Immigration enforcement, the bailouts, continued special treatment to donors and no bid contracts, and on and on. They have not only bucked the repubs but the overwhelming majority of our country.


> However, at those meetings, republicans stated outright that they did not want to negotiate. Oh boy, that sure makes democrats want to work with republicans.


I don't know where you are getting this from. The one time Obama tried to get some bipartisanship, he couldn't do it, the liberals blocked tort reform for example. This is something that over 60% of americans wanted. Then Pelosi just took the bill and ran with it. The ultra liberals bear the blame for this one, moderate dems and repubs got run over here. When repubs tried early to get some provisions on there they were blocked by the liberals. Pelosi was the liberal hero for this, she sure showed them, I think even MSNBC reported that. Really worked out well at the mid terms.

Had someone or some group insulted Chelsea Clinton the way that Bristol Palin has been ripped, there would be an uproar. No doubt. I really don't know why liberals like to pick fights with Palin, the media and liberals are making her more significant that she is. She is a resigned governor turned reality TV star. The liberals and the media are going to put her in office. Just ignore her, maybe she'll go away or lose popularity.

I do agree with you that we need to take care of other people, or bums as you called them, but it can't be a blank check. There has to be limits and budgets. The other alternative is to build more prisons. This is where both parties aggravate me, no sex ed, but no funding for free contraception. We want abortions but we won't execute a murderer. uke:

The old saying from Thomas Jefferson goes "a government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything you have". We allowed our federal gov't to get too big, to get too corrupt, to ship jobs overseas, to get involve in conflicts that do not involve us, and to the line the pockets of a select few.

The best answer is fiscal responsibility, small business,term limits, and to downsize the federal government in a hurry.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

good post TK33.. where have you been hiding??


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

been hunting, and working. It got redundant in here for a while.

This one made me laugh so I chimed in.

Liberals are anything but tolerant. Eric Rudolph, environuts, animal rights activists, etc. All directly tied to the liberal movement, all violent, cowardly goons.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

BD. here i go again  . i have a relative that has never worked a day in her life. she's about 35. she has 4 kids with 3 different "guys". 3 of them are mexicans who i don't believe work either. now, this relative of mine is an absolute pig uke: morbidly obese, has nose rings,tataoos,greasy hair, smokes cigs and weed,drinks heavily.ect. . now lets say you BD, make 50,000$ a year and pay 15,000 $ in taxes. doesn't it make you just a bit ****** off knowing that you work hard only to know that your 15,000 and probably your wifes tax$ goes to "help" out this piece of trash???. she has a tatoo above her belly button that say's."no teeny weenies" with an arrow pointing down to her  . is it ok with you that you paid for that??. is it ok with you that this parasite smokes,drinks on what you have provided?? now just think what her kids are going to grow up as, and their kids. it's unbeilievable to me that a man of your knowledge(which i think you are) :thumb: can't see the problem the future of this country is heading. just let this post sink in awhile before responding.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

bearhunter, this is what I would do. Offer job training while reducing her welfare 10% per month. When her welfare hits zero let social services have the kids and let the bi-ch starve. She should have enough fat to carry her until her brain kicks in and she finds a job. If she isn't that smart she should have been taken out of the gene pool before she reproduced.

This is the type of person that our framers of the constitution worried about. They seriously considered letting only property owners vote because they feared politicians with no scruples would use public funds to buy votes from the lazy. That's where were at now.

You might be interested in the book or CD of Peter Marshall called Restoring America. It talks about the Constitution and Christianity. As a matter of fact a friend of mine who was a seminary professor has a student who wrote a book called the Constitution and Christianity. It was published in 1987 or 88 I don't remember. Anyway, Peter Marshall also talks about how the supreme court has violated the constitution when they ordered the schools to stop prayer. If you read the first amendment it says "congress shall make no laws". It is perfectly constitutional for each state to make up their mind what they want to do, and the 14th amendment is not applicable. Good stuff. Perhaps most conservatives already know these things, but the ignorant liberals who really need it will refuse to read it. Sort of like a child that don't want to take their medicine. It might cure them.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Plainsman. :thumb: . even though she's a relative i can't even stand looking at her. hav'nt spoken to her in years. if she comes to family gatherings, i leave el-pronto. but the other libs in my family say how sorry they feel for her :eyeroll: how she's never had a chance in life,that he obesity is not caused by over eating,its from angsiety,BD, i'll bet you a 10 spot you know who she voted for


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here you go BigDaddy, this sounds like more liberal tolerance to me. 
Wow, these guys must think George Bush is the one flying black helicopters in their neighborhood.



> DECEMBER 6--In the days after Bristol Palin was voted into the finals of "Dancing with the Stars," viewers from across the country wrote to the Federal Communications Commission accusing the ABC show of everything from running a "payola type program" to "encouraging and promoting teen pregnancy."
> Many of the complainants, whose letters were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, were upset that, as one Oregonian put it, "the top scores were voted off yet Sarah Palin's daughter remained on."
> One viewer from Pittsburgh alleged that the show's voting system had been "fixed by extreme supporters of the Tea Party and Radical Right-Wing. I find that it has become a political platform for Sarah Palin to improve her image and ooze her political slime." The aggrieved correspondent continued, "Bristol is not a star, what did she do, she had sex and got pregnant. Lets reward her&#8230;I made several call to ABC's complaint line and I hope that their phone lines melt. It has become a political movement, with Tea Party websites instructing on how to vote for Bristol. Ridiculousness!"
> Another source of grievances was a hug delivered to the 20-year-old Palin by one of the show's judges, Carrie Ann Inaba.
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here is another example for those who don't understand that the liberals who preach tolerance are the most intolerant.



> The website and personal credit card information of former Gov. Sarah Palin were cyber-attacked today by Wikileaks supporters, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate tells ABC News in an email.
> Hackers in London that the Palin team believe to be affiliated with "Operation Payback" - a group of supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks - have tried to shut down SarahPac and have disrupted Sarah and Todd Palin's personal credit card accounts, SarahPAC aide Rebecca Mansour said


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Could it be that both extremes (liberal or conservative) use fear as a motivating factor? And since they speak the loudest, get the most coverage. And in doing so, anyone who is a moderate member of either party, gets grouped with the ideological flakes on both sides? The vast majority of people in America are somewhere in the middle, yet you don't hear from them until voting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10 I'm absolutely sure your right. Then there are those in the middle who use that to push people from the left or right more to the middle. Last election I didn't like either candidate. As a matter of fact I can't remember voting for someone I like, it's always voting for who I dislike the least. I see Obama as radical left, so I bring up all the things I can to throw at him in hopes of shifting everything a little right if I can. 
One side worships business, and the other is now socialist. The big problem is controlling greed without damaging capitalism.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I get the fact that you argue to the extreme to negotiate to your side of the middle. However, the constant LOUD, extremes is what turns people off from even paying attention. The extremes leave the vast majority of people with no one to really represent them. Personally, this is exactly where I sit. Example, for the life of me I can not justify giving people who have been on unemployment for 99 weeks any more unemployment compensation. However, in the same light, I can not justify giving a tax cut to the richest people in our nation. Where does that leave the guy in the middle? Politically apathetic!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I worked for a salary all of my life, but I don't hate the rich. I see the liberals creating class hatred for political advantage. A guy who is broke doesn't hire people. The top five percent pay 80% of the taxes already, so I am inclined to thank them. I don't begrudge them the money they earned, but I simply wish I had more. If I 'm not rich I guess I'm the only one to blame. Anyway, just think of all the taxes Bill Gates pays, and all the kids that will have presents under the Christmas tree because their parents have jobs created by him.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Could it be that both extremes (liberal or conservative) use fear as a motivating factor? And since they speak the loudest, get the most coverage. And in doing so, anyone who is a moderate member of either party, gets grouped with the ideological flakes on both sides? The vast majority of people in America are somewhere in the middle, yet you don't hear from them until voting.


Sweet! Hey Gooseguy10 love this comment....

sounds somehow familiar....

Trying to place it...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I worked for a salary all of my life, but I don't hate the rich. I see the liberals creating class hatred for political advantage. A guy who is broke doesn't hire people. The top five percent pay 80% of the taxes already, so I am inclined to thank them. I don't begrudge them the money they earned, but I simply wish I had more. If I 'm not rich I guess I'm the only one to blame. Anyway, just think of all the taxes Bill Gates pays, and all the kids that will have presents under the Christmas tree because their parents have jobs created by him.


I too have worked for a salary all my life, and I don't hate the rich. I also don't subscribe to your oft repeated mantra about liberal leaning people all promoting class hatred. That is devisive and isn't necessary.

The other oft repeated talking point of "a broke guy doesn't hire people" also doesn't fly. That is Republican psychobabble regurgitated as the laughable theory of trickle down economics. You know... extra billions from multi millionaires would have trickled down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and innovation and investment by now if only we had 8 years to let it play out. How is that theory working again?

You know Plainsman, back when our tax system was actually decently progressive, with the highest tax rates around 90%, the rich donated much more of their money to charity since it was tax deductible and they preferred their favorite charities over how the government would spend their money. Again, more money went to charity when we had higher taxes on the rich. I now that flies in the face of your trickle down theory, but it is true. Not saying I'm advocating returning to those days to that level, however it does prove a point.

Also, weird how Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark zuckerberg, and many, many others give away massive amounts to charities when they have, if you're correct, no incentive whatsoever to do so.

If you look at history, or even modern societies where taxes are almost non-existent (e.g., the UAE), you'll see that the rich do not use all that extra untaxed money to help the middle class or poor.

The reason we're "forced" to give taxes for social programs is that if we weren't forced, we wouldn't do it. History has borne that out.

Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere, at any time.

When you use taxes to force a redistribution of the wealth, the actual total of wealth GOES UP. It's not a zero sum game, the larger the middle class, the better off the poor are and the while the top end may not be AS rich as they might have been, they'll still be filthy rich.

Food for thought.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> they'll still be filthy rich.


Filthy? Filthy, as in dirty? That statement tells me how jealous you are of the rich. Get over it, or go do something that makes you one of them. This is a product of the class hatred the liberals have promoted.



> You know Plainsman, back when our tax system was actually decently progressive


I don't know about trickle down economics, but what you just stated above is another indication of liberal mentality. If we all pay our fair share then we would all pay a fixed amount. Lets say $10,000 per year. Percentage in itself is a way to rip of the productive. I worked for a salary all my life too, but I don't begrudge others what they have earned. This is a good time of year to be thankful for them. Next time you meet a millionaire thank him for paying so much in taxes that you have to pay so little.



> When you use taxes to force a redistribution of the wealth, the actual total of wealth GOES UP.


Show me the proof. I think that's one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. You know Karl Marx may agree with you, but I think there are even democrats that will see the folly in that statement.

As far as giving to charities. Search the giving to charities of our congressmen. You will find that those terrible republicans give two to three times as much as democrats do. No fooling, check it out.

So are you still thinking Obama is the messiah? He ticked America off so bad, that your now out of the mainstream America and I am in.  Most of the country evidently thinks like I do now.

Lets talk about greed. What is more greedy people wanting the money they earn, or the people who want the money that others earn. Liberals want the money that the productive earn.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

The more wealth that is concentrated at the top (and such concentration follows inevitably from unfettered capitalism) the less freedom there is for the vast majority of the population - freedom for self-realization, freedom to change living/employment situations, just plain free time.

For one example, there was an article in the NYT the other day that pointed out that our dysfunctional, profit-driven health care system is actually counter-productive to the sort of innovation and risk-taking the right is so fond of. This is due to the simple reason that large numbers of people, especially people with families, are forced to hold on to jobs that they might otherwise leave to strike out on their own, innovate, take risks, because of the fear of losing their health insurance and the high cost of purchasing independent insurance.

Right-wing policy wonks recognize this problem and have proposed a solution: eliminate employer-sponsored insurance so that everyone simply pays for their own medical care or insurance. This could be done simply by eliminating the tax-deductability of employer-sponsored insurance, since that is the main incentive for employers to comensate employees in insurance instead of directly in cash.

I'm all for it!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > When you use taxes to force a redistribution of the wealth, the actual total of wealth GOES UP.
> 
> 
> Show me the proof. I think that's one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. You know Karl Marx may agree with you, but I think there are even democrats that will see the folly in that statement.


Ok Plainsman that statement may have been a bit too strongly worded. However, economists have studied the effect of taxation on aggregate wealth, and have reached rather more nuanced and less ideologically simplistic conclusions. If you count everyone's dollars equally, taxation induces deadweight loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss ) and thus _decreases_ aggregate wealth. If you instead try to measure "utility" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility ) by counting a rich person's dollar as worth less than a poor person's dollar, then you can indeed create utility by transfering dollars. The trouble is, there is no clear, objective way to compare utility across persons. (Meaning that MUCH of an uber uber rich person's wealth is held and not spent vs someone poorer needing to spend a larger total percentage of their income on tasks involved in surviving month to month)

However, if you DO look at the economic patterns of capitalist economies with higher taxes or look at the last century of American history. Higher taxes on rich people=growth. Yes, this is simplistic and not ALWAYS true, but I am speaking in generalities.

Plainsman it always surprises me how can you nonchalantly assume that 'your' wealth (or the wealth of any successful person)was amassed in a complete vacuum, you just earned it and there were absolutely no other factors involved say like relatively stable public insitutions, relatively sound infrastructure and other such things that exist due to something called taxes (as in estate tax). The position of you most Conservative wonks is fundamentally ludicrous even before you consider that the more unfettered capitalism is the less freedom there is for the 99% who are not on top of the food chain. This includes everyone reading this.

You do realize that a more equal playing field for the poor results in a society with less poverty, crime, & disease. Right?

I constantly find myself astounded when lurking here and reading some of the replies by those who support Repbulican taxation policies. Even people who would never in their lifetimes be affected by such a tax (99.9% of this readership) apparently will oppose Democratic economic and taxation principles on the grounds that (at least so far as I can surmise) they have been deluded into believing they _MAY _be affected someday, either because, you know, they're suddenly going to win a multi-million dollar Lotto jackpot, or else because they bought into the upper-class's canard that "taxing the rich is only the first step toward taxing everyone!" 
:rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

RYAN, under the current system if you take a single parent with a family of three one working minimum wage and the other making $60,000.00 gross! The parent working Minimum wage has more disposable income than the other all bills being equal. Thus there is no incentive for the minimum wage earner to advance themselves. How does this make our society better and all people have more wealth?

Without going into the entire breakdown, it should be clear that the minimum wage earner is receiving $24,000.00 in Gov subsidy for child care, health care, rental assistance, earned income credit etc.. and the only tax they pay to the Fed Gov is what is withheld for SS! The other person pays not only SS, but state and Fed income tax has no rental assistance,no child care assistance, does not receive $5000.00 in earned income payment.

Now looking at the filthy rich as you say, how and why should they sustain this type of outlay for people who choose most of the time to not be educated, not do drugs or abuse alcohol, have children with someone who cannot or will not support them?

It is very simple, Ryan you like other LIBERALS always try and perpetuate a class warfare implying that the successful people are not carrying their fair share. Almost 50% of all wage earners do not pay any Federal taxes and many no state taxes as well. Yet the 5% top wage earners pay 70% of all taxes collected.

This latest bill that holds the current tax rates static if deficits and revenue really are a concern is much more costly in regards to total dollars not collected with the rates for those who earn $200,000.00 So it is time really to stop hiding and claiming the things you do. The wealthy do pay thir fair share it is the rest who are not if you really want to be honest.

Myself I think taxes are to high, and that spending be it pork,entitlements or special interest like the farm bill all need to be on the table and looked at for deep cuts. Eliminate the waste duplication and reduce the payroll of the Fed Gov top to bottom. While it will increase to some degree unemployed, we would overtime absorb those people back into the non Gov workforce and move the economy and our country forward instead of continuing the backward slide.

This is not a one party problem, it is a Gov problem that resulted from people like yourself who instead of looking to limit Gov are looking for the Gov to be the end all for everything


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Myself I think taxes are to high, and that spending be it pork,entitlements or special interest like the farm bill all need to be on the table and looked at for deep cuts. Eliminate the waste duplication and reduce the payroll of the Fed Gov top to bottom. While it will increase to some degree unemployed, we would overtime absorb those people back into the non Gov workforce and move the economy and our country forward instead of continuing the backward slide.
> 
> This is not a one party problem, it is a Gov problem that resulted from people like yourself who instead of looking to limit Gov are looking for the Gov to be the end all for everything


DING DING DING.....we have a winner!

One thing the Gov. needs to look at is the most basic, simple philosophy for financing.... If you don't bring in X amount you can't spend X amount. The dollar in dollar out philosophy. Which means don't spend more than you make. So keep taxes where they are and cut spending! And yes it is that simple. Gov. is business no matter what people say. If my business I own keeps spending more than I am bringing in i would be broke and a laughing stock. Isn't this is what our goverment is doing?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan is a fan of Keynesian economics even though it has failed time and again. Obama is a fan of Keynesian economics and look where that is leading us. Oh, ya, I forgot it's Bush's fault. Maybe Palins fault. oke:
We didn't get out of the great depression because of Keynesian economics, we got out because of WWII. I suspect the democrats were thankful for that war. 
The poor don't create jobs the rich do. Is that a surprise to anyone? Higher taxes leading to greater wealth is such psycho babble that I can not believe anyone seriously believes it. As a matter of fact I don't think anyone does seriously believe it. I think they have other agendas. One is to drive the American economy into the dirt so socialism looks good to the majority of the populace. Right up Bill Ayers and Obama alley. Why else would everything Obama does destroy more of the economy. Even a mentally challenged third grader would not have done as damage by accident as Obama has on purpose.

Ryan what do you think of the liberal guy's statement that they need to create economic chaos and blame the republicans?

Following your reasoning Ryan if a person making one million a year goes into the grocery store should he pay $10 for a head of lettuce while the person earning $100 thousand a year pays only $1 and the guy making $50 thousand gets $3 back? That is what you think should be done with taxes. I am thankful those rich people pay so much. It gives me a guilty coincidence that they do more than I do. It makes me feel like a burden on them. It's called dignity and I can't for the life of me figure out why liberals don't have some. How do some live off others and still hold their head up?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Please do not put words in my mouth Plainsman

As an incredibly rich American, I light my Cuban cigars with $100 bills, I think all you little people should have a tax cut too. I'm a good guy that way and I know you all love me for it. I know you all aspire to be just like me, rich. Work hard, don't raise your voice, don't organize, mind your own business, don't talk to strangers, and please don't vote as it's a waste of time; and some day you too will be rich just like me.

Good Luck.

</sarcasm>

I read in some magazine once that 19% of Americans think they are in the top 5% of income earners. Not someday... but TODAY, right now, at the time they were asked the question.

There's your answer. We're a bunch of fairy-tale believing, American Myth loving, self-deluded idiots. Of course we don't mind. We like our mythology too much to mind.

What's worth more to you - your dreams or your reality?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What's worth more to you - your dreams or your reality?


Planning is one thing, but dreaming is for losers.

Here is some sarcasm since you understand that. Why are you people working. I can sit at home drink cheap booze and watch Oprah and I make more than minimum wage. Plus the three unwed mothers of my children make a lot more if I don't marry them. The biggest fools on this planet are those who work their can off thinking they are getting somewhere. I retired when I dropped out of fifth grade at 19 years old. You guys with the PhD are not living as good as I am, and you think your the smart ones. Hope and Change = Hope Obama wins again, and the change will be more taxes for the rich and bigger welfare checks for me. oke:



> I read in some magazine once that 19% of Americans think they are in the top 5% of income earners. Not someday... but TODAY, right now, at the time they were asked the question.


That sounds like something from the Huffington Post again. I read something from a psychologist studying American attitudes. Guys making a $100 thousand thought they were the little guys because they compared themselves to the guys making a million. Then the guys making a million thought they were the little guys because they compared themselves to the guys making ten million. It looks like everyone thinks they are the little guy and that is why the liberal class warefare works so well. Everyone is feeling sorry for themselves. Just to put your theory against mine lets ask anyone who thinks they are in the top five percent of Americans (income that is) please post up. Not including you Ryan because you make six figures and your a genius. oke:


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

he's alive


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

My uncle who died a few years ago was pretty well off. He did not like taxes and once he was of retirement age put almost all of his money into municipal tax free bonds. Lower interest rate, but with the tax liability he came out ahead. His gripe was the waste and welfare. He was a young man during the Depression, left home at 16 and took a job sent money home for his father and mother to use toward the other kids.

It galled him to see the waste that Gov waste and their want for more tax revenue. Yet he voted when asked for new school levies when they where actually needed. Voted for local sales tax rate increases for street and sewer repairs. He got it and understood. However with the give away programs we have had the last few years, the waste, the expansion of Gov, he would be livid.

Ryan, to be very blunt, almost everyone I know would gladly pony up more in Fed taxes if they where being responsible with the money. That is what you fail to grasp, or intentionally ignore( my money is on the later)! You are not going to have people willing or begrudgingly allow tax increases with the way the current Gov is acting with the money they do get and the money they do not have!

If you really think otherwise, then why did Reid pull the omnibus spending bill? You can say he did not have the votes, and the reason he did not have the votes is because 1/3 of the Senate are up for re-election and it was a pork heavy bill full of BS spending at a time when we are in deficit with our entitlement obligations. If you cannot grasp this, then there is simply no hope for you at all.

You act as if tax increases will solve our ills, it is the spending and until spending is under control, nobody rich middle class or poverty level should have another single dime taken from them for Gov operations!

Address the over spending,waste and then come talk!


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere, at any time.


Showing your age...too young to remember the late 70's and how it was turned around with the guy at the helm who gets all the blame for said ecomomics. Our current leaders, in their infinite wisdom and ability to defy all forces, have subscribed to trickle UP economics. :shake:



> back when our tax system was actually decently progressive, with the highest tax rates around 90%,


This just simply defies ALL logic to me. Forget about what, if any, meaning it has economically and just let 90% sink in for a second. Can anyone who can even pronounce the words in the Constitution think for a nanosecond the govt should have the right to claim 90% of _anyone's_ earnings? I can't even imagine how the ones who wrote the tax code could submit it without shame :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquared said:


> > Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere, at any time.
> 
> 
> Showing your age...too young to remember the late 70's and how it was turned around with the guy at the helm who gets all the blame for said ecomomics. Our current leaders, in their infinite wisdom and ability to defy all forces, have subscribed to trickle UP economics. :shake:
> ...


Taxes at 90% is about what they take in the communist countries. I think when Russia was complete communist with no freedom they still left you a small percentage of your earnings. Socialism redistributes some of our wealth, but where does communism begin? In my mind 90% would be communist and nearly a total redistribution of that persons income. 
Ryan you should go meet Castro before he dies. I think the two of you would hit it off. I don't say that with tongue in cheek, or lightly, I am serious.


----------

