Another lesson for the US public. Marxism strikes again!

[parmenio]

Not a two way street when marxism is in the same breath with our country's future! Got it!

[divemaster5734]

Point taken divemaster.  You have not offended me in any way.  I actually agree with what you are saying.  My problem stems from the very get go of some of these threads.  They are designed to trigger a negative response, as I see it.  I too wish for proper dialogue without all of the partisan banter.  Sadly, it doesn't seem to be possible.  The title of this thread says it all......the addition of "Marxism strikes again" is not necessary in any way.  I will not sit on my hands and watch my country implode because people refuse to compromise.  It's a two-way street, as I have stated many times before.  Turning the other cheek is always a good answer.....until the stinging from being slapped is too much to bare.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

I'll agree some thread labels have been designed to tie all democrats to the extreme progressive agenda's, and that is not fair or even remotely true.

I recommend we all make an effort to not offend, however, in this individual instance, the title fits.

If the current administration is anything, it is fully supportive of all things socialist.

One of the biggest problems facing America is the absurdity of political correctness.

PC has turned Americans into a thin-skinned whiner society that thinks any idea or message must be sugar coated because even the malevolent have feelings which must be protected.

 

That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

Take that to the next step and solders will be forced to apologize to the enemy before they shoot them in the head.

That's the same as being forced to spent $2000.00 on a dentist to give a root canal to a convicted murderer 1 week before their execution.

Or a home owner getting sued because a thief got bit by the dog while they were stealing from the home.

 

It's time to end this "gypsy queen" false pride and fragile ego garbage.

 

While I agree calling all democrats progressives, or all conservatives republicans is wrong, obummer is definitely a Marxist, through and through.

[dontlop]

bush had a good jump start when clinton left him 5.7 trillion dollar debt ... a recession .. and a national security disaster on top of that .. if we want to place blame .. its going back beyond bush to clinton ...

[parmenio]

 

I'll agree some thread labels have been designed to tie all democrats to the extreme progressive agenda's, and that is not fair or even remotely true.

I recommend we all make an effort to not offend, however, in this individual instance, the title fits.

If the current administration is anything, it is fully supportive of all things socialist.

One of the biggest problems facing America is the absurdity of political correctness.

PC has turned Americans into a thin-skinned whiner society that thinks any idea or message must be sugar coated because even the malevolent have feelings which must be protected.

 

That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

Take that to the next step and solders will be forced to apologize to the enemy before they shoot them in the head.

That's the same as being forced to spent $2000.00 on a dentist to give a root canal to a convicted murderer 1 week before their execution.

Or a home owner getting sued because a thief got bit by the dog while they were stealing from the home.

 

It's time to end this "gypsy queen" false pride and fragile ego garbage.

 

While I agree calling all democrats progressives, or all conservatives republicans is wrong, obummer is definitely a Marxist, through and through.

Well said divemaster! AAA+++

 

[KiaKaha]

Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year Since 1960:

 

Hey, Parm, where is your source? I'd like to look thru the numbers previous to 1960, if there are any. I'm curious how many fiscal years have actually ended in a surplus, as well as how many terms have. I understand that it can take many years, almost a decade in Reagan's case, for any changes to show an impact.

 

It gets frustrating when people spout off about "the mess" or "the deficit" a president takes over... I'm guessing every president but Washington stepped into problems, and obviously he had plenty of those! No one comes into office with a clean slate, it's what they do in the interim, for better or worse, that really matters. As I said, sometimes the good things they do don't show up until years later, but they put those changes into effect on their watch. If a president isn't putting positive changes into effect, he is a failure. If the changes he does put into effect are negative, he is a failure. I don't really care if he wears an R or a D... if the things he does do not change our country and her standing for the better, he had no business living in our House.

 

KK

[pattyangel]

I agree KK.  If a president can't produce fruit on his tree's, then its time to chop the tree.  Or get someone in there to cultivate the land and start producing fruits. 

[divemaster5734]

Hey, Parm, where is your source? I'd like to look thru the numbers previous to 1960, if there are any. I'm curious how many fiscal years have actually ended in a surplus, as well as how many terms have. I understand that it can take many years, almost a decade in Reagan's case, for any changes to show an impact.

 

It gets frustrating when people spout off about "the mess" or "the deficit" a president takes over... I'm guessing every president but Washington stepped into problems, and obviously he had plenty of those! No one comes into office with a clean slate, it's what they do in the interim, for better or worse, that really matters. As I said, sometimes the good things they do don't show up until years later, but they put those changes into effect on their watch. If a president isn't putting positive changes into effect, he is a failure. If the changes he does put into effect are negative, he is a failure. I don't really care if he wears an R or a D... if the things he does do not change our country and her standing for the better, he had no business living in our House.

 

KK

This is true.

The problem is, we have been in a declared state of emergency since Lincoln.

Not one president since him has had the integrity to lift it.

By doing so they would relinquish a lot of power.

Instead, each one has decided to not just maintain the status, but to use EO's beyond what they were intended for, and thereby abused the power of the office they swore to occupy with integrity and constitutional adherence.

Even before then, George Washing altered the intended office oath, and refused to take the full oath.

So, the truth, is every single POTUS that has ever occupied the office has gone back on their word the moment they swore into it.

These conversations are nothing but a distraction.

I engaged hoping to wake people up to the core issue, no matter who or what is in that office, no matter how many of various flavored politicians are pretending to represent the people, they are only there through OUR implied consent.

We don't need some UCC-1 filing, we don't need to shoot our neighbors, the police, take on the military, or take any other violent action against another human being.

We need to take away our consent, and they will no longer have ANY authority over us.

That's it.

Do you honestly think the police would even try to lock up every single American that isn't a government agent?

Think about it.

Just walk away.

Edited March 12, 2013 by divemaster5734