Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's typical for bank robbers to insist as loud as they can, that the bank isn't being robbed. You don't expect them to ENCOURAGE the cops to catch them at what they're doing, after all.
These people are pushing an agenda most normal Americans don't want. So their only choice is to lie, deflect, pretend, and try to fool people into supporting them. It's never been easy to be a liberal, in part for this reason.
They've been at it long enough, that these liberals now lie as easily and naturally as they breathe.
So threads like this one are becoming very common from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11
Social welfare in the US is far older than Obama, and not the same thing as socialism.
Let me guess.
The leftist fanatics are now regurgitating the old "If it doesn't 100% fit the dictionary definition of "socialism", with every I dotted and every t crossed, then it's not socialism" dodge.
Am I right?
Sort of like the people who insist the Titanic was never sunk, because "to get sunk" implies that some active effort intending to accomplish that end was committed by a person or group. And since the iceberg wasn't a sentient entity, but just an inert mass, then it can't be said that the Titanic "got sunk". And so it wasn't sunk.
As I said, the leftist fanatics are so cute when they keep spewing their lies in the wan hope that there's still someone out there somewhere, who might believe them.
The leftist fanatics are now regurgitating the old "If it doesn't 100% fit the dictionary definition of "socialism", with every I dotted and every t crossed, then it's not socialism" dodge.
Am I right?
Roughly.
The "there's nothing going on" argument.
The 'millions of regulations haven't destroyed the economy' tripe, etc, etc.
Sadly, what they want fulfills the textbook definitions in intent, if not letter. The various definitions do include straying from "pure" socialism, which isn't all that pure anyway, since not all the definitions read the same.
I just look at it this way... If socialists want it, then it's about implementing socialism. Whether some specific program is truly socialist doesn't really matter, what matters is whether the change is toward it or away from it. And we all know there's been no "away" in forever and lots toward.
Right there, you said it. You implied that the other poster should have criticized tax cuts as "redistribution".
I asked him if he thought they are the same. If rich to poor is, shouldn't poor to rich be the same? I never said what you claimed I did. Perhaps trickle down would have been a better example than Bush, I will grant you that. And Obama certainly hasn't spared the poor, their taxes went up too. Shouldn't we have seen them drop to zero or something?
I asked him if he thought they are the same. If rich to poor is, shouldn't poor to rich be the same? I never said what you claimed I did. Perhaps trickle down would have been a better example than Bush, I will grant you that. And Obama certainly hasn't spared the poor, their taxes went up to.
There was no "poor to rich". It never happened. But you imply it did, and by doing so, is where you make the claim. Implications mean things.
One of the GOP pets in Congress is farm subsidies. How do you reconcile that as not being a handout? Or protections or tariffs are interference in the market. You talk a big game about capitalism but the reality is far different
I asked him if he thought they are the same. If rich to poor is, shouldn't poor to rich be the same? I never said what you claimed I did. Perhaps trickle down would have been a better example than Bush, I will grant you that. And Obama certainly hasn't spared the poor, their taxes went up too. Shouldn't we have seen them drop to zero or something?
"Trickledown" is a meaningless buzzword meant to imply a vast multitude of falsehoods.
One of the GOP pets in Congress is farm subsidies. How do you reconcile that as not being a handout? Or protections or tariffs are interference in the market. You talk a big game about capitalism but the reality is far different
Maybe you wouldn't, that just means you aren't a hypocrite like many who cry socialism in the morning and turn around and doll out billions to pet industries in the afternoon.
Maybe you wouldn't, that just means you aren't a hypocrite like many who cry socialism in the morning and turn around and doll out billions to pet industries in the afternoon.
Then why did you try to imply it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
