Is this election about class warfare?

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The definitions are fine. They're supported by the historical quotes.Again, supported by the quotes and taken in full historical context with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

In any case, can you now tie that in to the subject of this thread? How is it relevant?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by stillkit

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

In any case, can you now tie that in to the subject of this thread? How is it relevant?

I was responding to this post, which indirectly refers to one of the fascists examined in 'Socialism and Fascism.'

Originally Posted by my54ford

The GOP started it!!!! You have got to be kidding..
.
All we hear from the left is the rich this and the rich that. The rich man has his boot on our neck. wealthy corporations are bad give us your money blablablabaaaa If you change the words rich, wealthy etc to the word JEWS the message of the left sounds a whole bunch like the message being delivered by another dynamic speaker back in the '30's It crowd manipulation 101 find a group and focus their hatred on another group, divide and conquer

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I was responding to this post, which indirectly refers to one of the fascists examined in 'Socialism and Fascism.'

But...you quoted MY post!

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by stillkit

But...you quoted MY post!

No, I didn't. Go back and read:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/25345608-post200.html

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, I didn't. Go back and read:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/25345608-post200.html

Post # 209.

In any case, it's just a misunderstanding, so let's drive on.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The Bush cuts were NOT sold as improving jobs. Those cuts were put in place to recover from a recession and put money in people's pockets to spend.

We didn't have a jobs problem back then..it was to get people spending.

You are only refering to the 2001 cuts, which in actuality, the rationale for those tax-cuts kept shifting.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush said the reason was to return the surplus to the people:

Gov. George W. Bush

''I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects. And I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills.''
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN - THE 2000 CAMPAIGN - Sorting It Out - Tax Cuts and Spending - NYTimes.com

Then, as President, when there was a recession, the cuts were named The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Then, in 2003, there were more tax-cuts. Since the name of the cuts were called, "The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003," one really can't claim that the Bushies didn't intend them to address jobs and growth, which they failed at doing both.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Post # 209.

I quoted your post in #209 because I was responding to that post. Are you confused by that?

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I quoted your post in #209 because I was responding to that post. Are you confused by that?

Apparently so as you quoted my post and, when I responded to your comments, you said you weren't talking to me.

Yes, I am confused but that's alright. I stay that way a lot.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Apparently so as you quoted my post and, when I responded to your comments, you said you weren't talking to me.

No, I said this... My post

...To which you responded, and then I responded to that.

Originally Posted by stillkit

Yes, I am confused but that's alright. I stay that way a lot.

Okay...