TeaBaggers are attacking their own

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Teresa Colegrove on October 14, 2009 at 4:55pm

RINO...Republican In Name Only...kinda like John McCain, Olympia Snow, Lindsey Graham and many, many more. I would agree that each person take a real look at all those they vote for and pledge sweep that corruption out of our government via our primary and general elections. It would be great to see both parties clean up their act so the republic can trust them again. With all the ACORN fraud (from prostitutes to voter registration and voter fraud, embezzlement and political activism) the funding returns to them October 31. Do you really think a complete investigation has been performed on the company who's co-founder is under investigation for embezzling over $5,000,000? Imagine if you will you've just started eating your favorite bag of chips. You're walking around at the park and you trip and spill your entire bag onto a steaming pile of dog poo. Sure, not all of the chips are in the poo...but are you going to eat them...no...you'll toss them out and buy new. I think that's exactly what each party should be doing now, looking at the primaries next year, and voting for the new, fresh candidates for the November 2010 general election. We all know there is a lot crap in Washington, so let's not take any chances and start fresh. It can be done. Right now, the democrats have promised equal rights to the gay and lesbian community, they are in complete power. What's the hold up? Pass the legislation already and recognized civil unions on the federal level. Why aren't they? My only guess is because it's a hot issue right now they can use to manipulate the populace and continue amassing power. Just like the abortion issue, civil rights and gun control. It's all a game to them (republicans and democrats). We're on to them, both sides. Let's get new players and really get things done.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 14, 2009 at 5:09pm

Sure, I agree with getting things done as long as its Single payer health care, full rights for LGBT's, another large stimulus bill, with most of it going to alternative energy, oh and raise taxes on the rich. Somehow I don't think what I want done is the same as what you want done.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teresa Colegrove on October 15, 2009 at 12:00pm

I believe we should all be permitted the freedom's and liberties granted in the constitution. Anything that you have to take away from me to give to someone else does not make it a right, it is stealing. Full rights for the lesbian and gay community should be permitted and we do need an alternative energy plan. But if you want to take what I've worked hard and earned to give to someone else, then no I don't agree with you and I don't agree socialism is good for this country. I would agree with Rush Limbaugh's earlier statement that Obama's socialist agenda should fail.

"Socialism is the 20th century's greatest tragedy. Although its evangelists promised equality, prosperity and security, it was only responsible for misery, poverty, and absolutely 100% of the time ended up in tyranny. The promoters of this appalling and loathsome grim joke on humanity unanimously point to the initial stages of any socialistic system where progress is made on a wide range of social issues, including universal health care, affordable housing, and guaranteed welfare. However, they unfailingly begin to suffer from amnesia when the mid to late stages of socialism arrive: Collectivism is impossible to support over a term of more than a few years due to the fact that it is based on a theory which is completely and absolutely erroneous.

Why does socialism always fail? Socialism is incompatible with the most basal and rudimentary principles of human behavior. Just like an animal has to be trained to perform a particular behavior through positive reinforcement, humans will generally not perform any act of labor unless there is acceptable incentivization. Incentives are central to a free market system: indeed the entire essence of the free market economy is to provide an elegantly interconnected infrastructure of incentives to drive and direct the socio-economic framework of the nation.

These incentives are based upon the essential human drive to possess. Under the free market economic model, individuals are enabled and empowered to gain tangible value from the fruit of their labor, and be able to build lasting security through wealth. One of the major keystones of this security is to be seen in the right to privately hold property. Permanent shelter is a fundamental human desire, and many individuals in a free market system have stated that the happiest day of their lives, after their wedding or birth of their children, is the day they burned their mortgage and thus owned their homes free and clear.

There are many other forms of value, whether it is the ability to possess entertainment, sports, leisure, professional, or convenience accessories, or to be able to invest wisely in order to ensure that children are secure while retirement comes early and is comfortable. The free market system is based this inalienable right to possess within a lattice of market-set pricing and profit-and-loss accounting. It is impossible to understate the importance of these incentives and their unparalleled power to shape the economy of a nation.

Incentives under socialism are virtually non existent. When you have a nation where all property is owned by the government there is no way for the common person to build security in any way. Individuals soon recognize that they are serfs of the state, and since they are subject to the whims of the politburo of the day, have no possibility for self determination. The only way to pull yourself out of the mire is to attempt to become one of the handful of Party authorities, who are able to live in the luxurious decadence of the top capitalists.

Socialist centrally planned economies invariably fail due to their inherent and integral failure to encourage, develop, and nurture the essential potential of its people by lack of incentivization. Socialism is a failure because it suppresses the human spirit. Why else have so many thousands of people lost their lives in attempts to clandestinely escape their socialistic bondage and reach nations which embrace free market economies? In comparison, how many people have willingly left free market economies to move to socialist countries?

By its inability to foster, promote and develop the potential of people through incentives, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of ambition, aspiration, enterprise, determination and industry. What happens to the aspiration of a human being when there is essentially no reason to do anything? Nothing gets done.

Thus lies the core flaw of collectivist economies: When you inform a laborer that it is essentially irrelevant whether they produce one wicket a day or a hundred, and that it is also irrelevant whether those wickets are quality crafted or thrown together, as they will live in the same government owned apartment, shop at the same meagre stores, and be stuck in the same droning, monotonous job for the rest of their lives... their productivity falls steadily until almost nothing is produced. Multiply that effect by virtually every laborer in the nation, and you soon see why socialist economies are marked by long queues outside stores when the word gets out that they have soap, or bread, or eggs that day. Nobody is producing anything, thus nobody sells anything, thus there is nothing to buy.

At a time when the fault lines of capitalism are becoming exposed through the recent financial seismic shocks, it is a knee jerk reaction for the closet socialists to come out of the closet, dust off their tired rhetoric, and give it one more shot to convince the world to sing "L'Internationale" in unison. The reason why each proponent of this deficient ideology, from Vladimir Lenin, to Mao Zedong, to John Lennon has failed is due to the barren wasteland which exists within the seductive allure of socialism to the poverty-stricken masses of the world. The chimera of being able to "share the wealth of the state" is extremely tempting to those who toil in drudgery while the upper classes are whizzed by in their chauffeured limousines.

What they don't understand is that the state cannot create wealth, it can only administer it. Thus, the essence of socialism is one of universal impoverishment where even the hope that the lower classes can escape their poverty vaporizes along with the rest of the the nation's productivity.

We in the free market world are currently undergoing a severe economic adjustment. It would be fallacious to lay the blame for this convulsion on free market ideology or capitalistic structures. The current upheavals are due to the failure to enforce existing financial regulations thus letting blind greed and rampant megalomania run wild. That is not what a free market economy is all about. Just like a state cannot exist without just laws, a capitalistic system cannot function without adherence to fair and reasonable regulation. This recession was triggered by a myopic and incompetent gaggle of politicians, not by any inherent fault of the free market system.

The genius of capitalism, and the basic reason why it succeeds where socialism fails, is contained within its core tenet that the free and unfettered market determines profit and loss. Every citizen is empowered to design and market a better mousetrap, provide a better service, or implement a better idea, and let the free choice of the consumer decide to reward them. The potential success of the individual is limited only by their ambition, drive, and intellect, not by slavish adherence to a collectivist Five Year Plan.

It is at a time like this that we cannot afford to be hypnotized by the siren song of socialism, and the deleterious, titanic evils of nationalization, central planning, and government control through financing of private corporations. It is a time when we must refresh and renew our free market structures, allowing individuals the freedom and liberty to create wealth so that the rising tide will raise all boats once again. Some well known, salt of the earth companies and brand names will disappear forever, but they will be replaced and refreshed by unforeseen, startling new entities which will bring the nation new economic vitality and vigor. The United States of America is a land where ingenuity, innovation, and imagination are literally imbued in the lifeblood of the nation and its people. It has only ever existed as a framework in order to Let Freedom Ring, and none of its citizens must ever be enslaved to any degree of socialistic peonage, no matter how limited, or coated in an illusion of necessity."*

*Hal Lacino

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on October 15, 2009 at 1:17pm

Who the fuck is Hal Lacino?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 15, 2009 at 2:00pm

Probably some ancient John Birch society dude, still seeing communists behind every bush.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 15, 2009 at 2:26pm

Gee, I guess neither you nor Hal Lacino have ever been to Europe where most of the countries have had
"socialistic systems" since WW2. They also have rich people, big corporations, less poverty, better health, and plenty of freedom. Spend a few weeks in England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden etc. and then come back and tell how terrible they are, and the people are slaves weeping in the street. Or at least watch the travel channel and tell me about the horrors you see on there. And the US has been a "socialist system" since FDR and even somewhat before that, although to a lesser extent than most of Europe. It was fought for by your grandparents and great grandparents and created the modern middle class. Before that working people worked 12 hrs or more a day 6 days a week( including children) and spent their lives in poverty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on October 15, 2009 at 6:33pm

Yeah, it's hilarious to me when people get all misty-eyed about the "good old days" because they are either unaware of or choose to ignore what things were like for most of humanity back when we actually had the unchecked capitalism that some people are pining after.

Simpler times, when the lack of labor unions and government regulations meant that workers were ground up to a pulp in the gears of industry. When the industrialists were assured obscene and perpetual wealth while the general population languished in inescapable poverty.

And God help you if you weren't a white man.

Most sane people don't want Communism or a return to the Gilded Age. Thank goodness we have the benefit of hindsight to tell us that the excesses of either extreme were horrible and that we can find a happy medium through the wonderful process of our democratically elected representative government, complete with checks and balances and a living document called the constitution that assures we can continue to grow and improve as a nation.

Me, I'm a radical moderate. I will go to any extreme to maintain moderation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on October 14, 2009 at 8:53pm

I wouldn't say that they are turning on "their own". Based on the Ron Paul name dropping, the hecklers are clearly libertarians. I know the Republican party has gotten so schizophrenic lately that it's hard to tell, but it is a separate political party.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 15, 2009 at 5:50am

Yeah, I think Ron Paul attracts a lot of the far right with his ideas on economics, but I suspect that those people don't call themselves libertarians( or are members of the party) it's just all that returning to the "gold standard" and abolishing the federal reserve has always been popular among the far right. The funny thing is I really like Ron Paul and agree with some of his beliefs about foreign policy but I don't buy the "market solves all problems " philosophy. But Paul is very smart and seems to be a decent person.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on October 15, 2009 at 8:55am

Ron Paul's newsletter often contains race-baiting, and he idealizes the Confederacy. And he seems to like the militia nuts and their cute activities. How decent is that? Take a look at http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 15, 2009 at 2:10pm

I was aware of this. I said he "seems" like a decent person, not that his politics are necessarily decent. He does have some points with his antiwar views and beliefs that America needs to stop acting like an empire. I believe his free-market wingnuttery would be disastrous for the country. We had that over a 100 years ago and moved away from it to create the modern world. Not sure if he has racist and neoconfederate views or people glom onto him and he accepts them because they share his economic views. Still you have to watch who you associate with.

• ▶ Reply