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.
The problems are systemic, and can't be solved by voting for candidate A over candidate B. It doesn't matter who you elect. Once he goes to Washington, he becomes engulfed by the system.
Got a solution, then? What's your proposal - Anarchy? Revolution? Military coup? Inquiring minds want to know.
But to say you are against socialism, then to demand social programs, IS.
so...you are saying that those who have payed into a system that has promised them that they will recieve benefits from (which ALL of us know the government has, on occasion, rationed through either denying claims or lowering amount of payments to doctors per procedure) and then are against it's expansion to all by its proven feebleness are hypocrites?
To say one is against socialism, does one have to disavow what monies one has been forcedunder penalty of law to contribute to such a system? Or is paying into such system enough to claim the RIGHT to have it - although one disagreed with it? If you say 'yes', I simply disagree.
The social revolution started when the old guard (Bush/Cheney) ideology was voted out of favor when McCain lost the last election. The problem is that the old guard refused/still refuses to accept that so they had to put together a pseudo "revolution" and pretend that people in our country are SO OUTRAGED by this new president. We know what this is about: the old guard who is used to wielding all the power and controlling all the money is getting squeezed out; this old guard doesn't want to go down without a fight. I am sure that other people know this too.
so...you are saying that those who have payed into a system that has promised them that they will recieve benefits from (which ALL of us know the government has, on occasion, rationed through either denying claims or lowering amount of payments to doctors per procedure) and then are against it's expansion to all by its proven feebleness are hypocrites?
To say one is against socialism, does one have to disavow what monies one has been forcedunder penalty of law to contribute to such a system? Or is paying into such system enough to claim the RIGHT to have it - although one disagreed with it? If you say 'yes', I simply disagree.
I have to say "yes". I understand your point completely, and am sympathetic, but when it comes to marching against the government and its "socialism", then there has to be some philosophical integrity involved. Integrity often requires sacrifice. I am completely sympathetic to the people who've paid in, and want what they were told they were going to get back for those payments, but the social security programs, medicare and medicaid, are socialism. If you are against socialism, then you are against socialism, not just against social programs that don't affect you. Supporting that programs that affect you, while denigrating those that don't, makes saying that you are against them all, hypocrisy.
And you people do realize that the 'Tea Party Movement', while recruiting people who believe that they are real populists(a grassroots movement which gains enough support and momentum on its own to have widespread politico/social influence), is a proven 'false populist' movement bankrolled (the PR and more) by a huge pre-existing corporation?
Why do you think this is, and what effect do you believe it has on the legitimacy of the 'movement' in the eyes of the rest of the country, and the world?
Do you also realize that 99% of 'liberals' (or anyone who didnt agree with the GWB admin) were concerned/outraged about many/most of the Tea Party issues , due to GWBs policies?
Where were the Tea Partiers then? Where were they when the federal government was taking away your civil protections, and overspending, under that administration?
Tea partiers should have more intellectual self respect than to be told when to 'rebel', and when not to, by the 'conservative'/coporatist media. They also need to be more educated about economic and social policy, in general. Otherwise, they will continue to be marginalized as crazy, not for their beliefs, but for their inability to grasp of the issues surrounding them.
The social revolution started when the old guard (Bush/Cheney) was voted out of favor when McCain lost the last election. The problem is that the old guard refused/still refuses to accept that so they had to put together a pseudo "revolution" and pretend that people in our country are SO OUTRAGED by this new president. We know what this is about: the old guard who is used to wielding all the power and controlling all the money is getting squeezed out; this old guard doesn't want to go down without a fight. I am sure that other people know this too.
I am sorry that so many blame Obama for all of our woes - I agree that he is NOT the only government official involved with creating the problems our country faces today...I rarely give specifically him crap, actually.
I do work against his ideas though as I find them contrary to my own. But...since you wish to point out the differences between Obama's Administration and the one before him...could you show me what he has truly changed? Can you name one action of his, not rhetoric, that has ended a large policy of this predecessor? I can't name one - considering that the public voted for 'Change' (I didn't vote for his kind of 'change' - nor for McCain).
My personal opinion is that the American people voted their pocketbook in 2008 - as I have a feeling that they will also in 2010 since I can see no real change for the better...
I have to say "yes". I understand your point completely, and am sympathetic, but when it comes to marching against the government and its "socialism", then there has to be some philosophical integrity involved. Integrity often requires sacrifice. I am completely sympathetic to the people who've paid in, and want what they were told they were going to get back for those payments, but the social security programs, medicare and medicaid, are socialism. If you are against socialism, then you are against socialism, not just against social programs that don't affect you. Supporting that programs that affect you, while denigrating those that don't, makes saying that you are against them all, hypocrisy.
... To some degree, I agree with you, but I am not one to alienate those who would stand beside me even if they do not wish to give up those benefits that they were depending on.
The monies I have contributed over the past 20+ years to such programs, I have written off already in my head. Those programs, if they exist in 20 years when I would be able to retire (supposedly) will not function even half as well as they do today (which is sad)....the economy will not be able to support it - at least with our present system, and that is BOTH private & government. Do you disagree?
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.
... To some degree, I agree with you, but I am not one to alienate those who would stand beside me even if they do not wish to give up those benefits that they were depending on. 
