Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Canton

Canton, OH

#33377 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You Meant to say "We are not Liberals. We're Left Wing Radicals" which is how New Left Democrats like to refer to themselves.
Now if only the New Left Democrats was anything more than something some moron keeps clucking about on a forum. You can try to change reality all day long. No hidden commies or FDR's little troopers marching away your freedoms. Just some tin foil hat boy that has to go drifting back through time to try to find the last time he was relevant. FDR ya' say?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33378 Aug 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's been a very long time (about 40 years) since I'm heard anyone identify themselves as a "liberal", let alone a "left wing radical." These are very conservative times. Those labels just make easy strawmen for you to argue against. Can you give me an example of a "New Left Democrat" that labels himself as a "Left Wing Radical"?
How do you identify yourself? As a conservative Democrat? I'm still stunned that you voted for Obama twice. What didn't you like about McCain?
McCain was too left for me just like Romney was and Democrats that are to the Far Left Wing today still call themselves Liberal Democrats and you know yourself that New Left Liberals Democrats from the 1960's and are now Identifying themselves as Liberals since they have redefined Liberalism just as FDR redifined Liberalism but the goal of Liberal Democrats today is to be able to call themselves Conservatives.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33379 Aug 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I've heard that solution offered before. It's usually by those guys in front of a microphone in a suit or dress shirt.
But what about people that can barely make it to 65 now? Are we going to tell a bricklayer laborer that he must carry clamps of bricks and blocks up and down scaffolding until he's 68? How about a roofer or carpenter? Would you want a feeble 67 year old guy walking around on the roof of your house? Hell, I'll even use my own career here. Would you want to be the car in front of me on a snowy day when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs of freight and we have to come to a sudden stop on the freeway when I'm 68 years old? How much work can a man do on our roads and bridges at that age when it's 93 degrees outside and no shade?
There are jobs out there that can't be done safely (if at all) when you reach a certain age. Most of my relatives on my fathers side are in construction, and they will tell you how worn out their bodies are long before retirement.
The real solution to our SS and Medicare problems is to properly fund them. But that would take so much out of a paycheck for most people they would revolt and demand we end those failed programs. After all, one of the many reasons our healthcare insurance is so expensive is because government cheats our medical providers and they have to make up those losses by increasing the price on those who have healthcare insurance which of course increases the cost of premiums.
So you are saying your for Liberalism too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33380 Aug 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Which we all know will never happen. What should happen is that SS, Medicare and Medicaid should be run by the state only. Our deductions should go to the state and not the federal government. And of course, it should be optional as to whether a state even wants to be involved in healthcare and retirement for their citizens.
Problem is the Federal Government is broke and the Social Security Trust Fund is 17 Trillion Dollars in the hole which the SCOTUS confirmed in 1937 and stated that the Social Security Trust Fund is the US General Fund.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33381 Aug 30, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Now if only the New Left Democrats was anything more than something some moron keeps clucking about on a forum. You can try to change reality all day long. No hidden commies or FDR's little troopers marching away your freedoms. Just some tin foil hat boy that has to go drifting back through time to try to find the last time he was relevant. FDR ya' say?
No it's obvious morons like you keep clucking about on a forum posting nothing but nonsense and knows nothing about Democrat Party or its history and try to chanage reality all day long and I hate to tell you that there was Commies in FDR's administration reporting to Stalin which is known fact and his name was Lauchlin Currie and let me guess you are going to try to change reality which is common Liberal Democrats especially.

Lauchlin Currie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauchlin_Currie

The New Left: Like the Old Left, Just More Selfish

Jun 26, 2014 12:33 PM EDT

By Christopher Flavelle

If you don't like social welfare programs, take heart: Democrats may hesitate to expand the safety net anytime soon. And the reason isn't Republican opposition, but centrist indifference.

A Pew Research Center report released today shows that about one-third of registered U.S. voters are people who lean Democratic, but don't reliably vote that way, or even vote at all. In most ways, they look a lot like the Democratic Party's liberal base, with one important difference: They don't much care for programs to help the poor.

Pew's survey, "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology," looks at the views of Americans who are neither consistently liberal nor consistently conservative. It defined two groups of centrist voters who would tend to lean Democratic. The first is what it calls the next-generation left: younger, well-off and socially liberal, and more interested in science and technology than politics.(The group overlaps heavily with millennials.) The second is what Pew calls the faith-and-family left: socially conservative, religious and racially diverse.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06...
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#33382 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>McCain was too left for me just like Romney was and Democrats that are to the Far Left Wing today still call themselves Liberal Democrats and you know yourself that New Left Liberals Democrats from the 1960's and are now Identifying themselves as Liberals since they have redefined Liberalism just as FDR redifined Liberalism but the goal of Liberal Democrats today is to be able to call themselves Conservatives.
McCain was too left so you voted for Obama?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#33383 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying your for Liberalism too.
It doesn't matter whether you're for it or against it. You're in it now and have to deal with the reality that if continued this way, you're going to have a lot of people get screwed out of their life's contributions or a country going into default.

Simply put, if people want these programs, then fine, we have these programs. But you can't have these programs if they are underfunded or can't produce the desired results. If people want these programs, then they are going to have to financially support them. For many, that might take a half of a paycheck. In that case, people can then decide if they want to continue with these programs.

You can't have something for nothing. There is no magic machine where you stick in a five dollar bill and it comes out as a twenty. If you want a twenty dollar bill to come out of that machine, you have to stick a twenty dollar bill in.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#33384 Aug 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter whether you're for it or against it. You're in it now and have to deal with the reality that if continued this way, you're going to have a lot of people get screwed out of their life's contributions or a country going into default.
Simply put, if people want these programs, then fine, we have these programs. But you can't have these programs if they are underfunded or can't produce the desired results. If people want these programs, then they are going to have to financially support them. For many, that might take a half of a paycheck. In that case, people can then decide if they want to continue with these programs.
You can't have something for nothing. There is no magic machine where you stick in a five dollar bill and it comes out as a twenty. If you want a twenty dollar bill to come out of that machine, you have to stick a twenty dollar bill in.
Brilliant! Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Canton

Canton, OH

#33385 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No it's obvious morons like you keep clucking about on a forum posting nothing but nonsense and knows nothing about Democrat Party or its history and try to chanage reality all day long and I hate to tell you that there was Commies in FDR's administration reporting to Stalin which is known fact and his name was Lauchlin Currie and let me guess you are going to try to change reality which is common Liberal Democrats especially.
Lauchlin Currie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauchlin_Currie
The New Left: Like the Old Left, Just More Selfish
Jun 26, 2014 12:33 PM EDT
By Christopher Flavelle
If you don't like social welfare programs, take heart: Democrats may hesitate to expand the safety net anytime soon. And the reason isn't Republican opposition, but centrist indifference.
A Pew Research Center report released today shows that about one-third of registered U.S. voters are people who lean Democratic, but don't reliably vote that way, or even vote at all. In most ways, they look a lot like the Democratic Party's liberal base, with one important difference: They don't much care for programs to help the poor.
Pew's survey, "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology," looks at the views of Americans who are neither consistently liberal nor consistently conservative. It defined two groups of centrist voters who would tend to lean Democratic. The first is what it calls the next-generation left: younger, well-off and socially liberal, and more interested in science and technology than politics.(The group overlaps heavily with millennials.) The second is what Pew calls the faith-and-family left: socially conservative, religious and racially diverse.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06...
I personally think we need to reform our social programs. So what. The fact is there is nobody in these parts that fits how you keep describing Democrats. All the Dems I know work in Steel mills, have paid their taxes and worked their whole lives and have never had a hand out in their entire lives. No invisible commies and hidden freebies from the government. Your FDR fantasy is just dogma, from some wishy washy IQ club wannabe, who is too ashamed to admit they are a rightwing, Fascist Tea Bagger. The fact is Pops is the only person on here who has been on foodstamps, and if XXX went to the ER today, us responsible "Liberals" would be paying the bill, because he would rather buy smokes instead of easily affordable health care. Both are Conservatives. There's the crap you guys run your mouths about all day, like your little FDR trip, and then there is the real world, that is happening right now. The two have nothing to do with each other. You guys blabber about invisible commies that only Tea Bagger propaganda tools can see, and then there's the reality of a bunch of racist, gun hoarding kooks who follow emailed newsletters from oil corporations and who base their votes on which one is more coo coo crazy for Jesus like they are.
Canton

Canton, OH

#33386 Aug 30, 2014
Now was Timothy McVeigh before or after FDR? Let's get a little more relevant with our discussions. For instance, every single speck of what the Conservative Tea Party stands for, reads like a pay book for child murderer and domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. I'm not talking about what people used to be like way back in the times of FDR. I'm talking about right here and now. To the letter. The Tea Party Conservatives believe and follow the EXACT belief system that Timothy McVeigh did. His quotes are like he's reading from the Tea Party handbook. If you are still hung up on history that goes back a little further, let me know and I'll post you a link that shows how everything the Conservative Christian Rightwing Tea Party stands for is an exact checklist to things fascist regimes like Hitler had in common throughout history. Zing!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33387 Aug 30, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
McCain was too left so you voted for Obama?
yeap given the choice since McCain had already proven he was farther to the Left than Obama at the time and do you remember the Keating Five.

Keating Five

The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr.(Democrat of Michigan) were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#33388 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>yeap given the choice since McCain had already proven he was farther to the Left than Obama at the time and do you remember the Keating Five.
Keating Five
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr.(Democrat of Michigan) were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
On which issues was McCain more to the left than Obama?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33389 Aug 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter whether you're for it or against it. You're in it now and have to deal with the reality that if continued this way, you're going to have a lot of people get screwed out of their life's contributions or a country going into default.
Simply put, if people want these programs, then fine, we have these programs. But you can't have these programs if they are underfunded or can't produce the desired results. If people want these programs, then they are going to have to financially support them. For many, that might take a half of a paycheck. In that case, people can then decide if they want to continue with these programs.
You can't have something for nothing. There is no magic machine where you stick in a five dollar bill and it comes out as a twenty. If you want a twenty dollar bill to come out of that machine, you have to stick a twenty dollar bill in.
Point is people didnt contribute to nothing except to the US Treasury General Fund just as the FDR intended since Social Security was just another means to justify another tax on individuals and businesses which the SCOTUS Confirmed in 1960 which also said there is no rights to Social Security as Nestor found out in 1960 because Social Security is tax which is why there is no property rights to Social Security and we have known this since 1960 when the Liberal Majority confirmed it as stated in section 1104.

As of right now the US Federal Government is 17 trillion dollars in debt and broke which means Social Security is broke too and there is no way that the US cant keep providing for people who choose not to save on their own and bought into this Pseudo Liberalism and if the US continues the path that we are on now the US is going to default which you are right we cant have Government Spending Programs that can sustain themselves which FDR knew about Social Security which is why the Social Secuirty tax has to be raised continuously but if you go by the Liberal's thinking of today they will tax the people that are working even more which is BS to keep the Ponzi Scheme going but the Federal Government isnt going to get rid of Social Security until peoples 401k's and private pension are seized which is why politicians are trying to convince people that their 401k's and pension are safer in Social Security than the Private Market which isnt true.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33390 Aug 30, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
On which issues was McCain more to the left than Obama?
all I can tell you is go back and go through videos where McCain is talking and listen to McCain talk then you will understand he is a Leftist and like the saying says "Birds of a feather flock together"(keating five).
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#33391 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>all I can tell you is go back and go through videos where McCain is talking and listen to McCain talk then you will understand he is a Leftist and like the saying says "Birds of a feather flock together"(keating five).
You can't come up with two issues on your own where McCain was to the left of Obama?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33392 Aug 30, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally think we need to reform our social programs. So what. The fact is there is nobody in these parts that fits how you keep describing Democrats. All the Dems I know work in Steel mills, have paid their taxes and worked their whole lives and have never had a hand out in their entire lives. No invisible commies and hidden freebies from the government. Your FDR fantasy is just dogma, from some wishy washy IQ club wannabe, who is too ashamed to admit they are a rightwing, Fascist Tea Bagger. The fact is Pops is the only person on here who has been on foodstamps, and if XXX went to the ER today, us responsible "Liberals" would be paying the bill, because he would rather buy smokes instead of easily affordable health care. Both are Conservatives. There's the crap you guys run your mouths about all day, like your little FDR trip, and then there is the real world, that is happening right now. The two have nothing to do with each other. You guys blabber about invisible commies that only Tea Bagger propaganda tools can see, and then there's the reality of a bunch of racist, gun hoarding kooks who follow emailed newsletters from oil corporations and who base their votes on which one is more coo coo crazy for Jesus like they are.
You need an Education for sure by your post because most of the people I know that worked in the steel mills in the Pittsburgh area were Republicans and not Liberal Democrats or Democrats and wanted nothing to do with the Democrat Party and all you proving is you are one of them that wants to be dependent on the Government too and looking for any freebies you can get too plus for your information I have worked in the Canton/Akron Area of Ohio too and know that there alot of them on the dole there because of their own choosing vs working which is why the Canton/Arkon area is a $hithole and you can blame Liberalism as they call it today.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#33393 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>all I can tell you is go back and go through videos where McCain is talking and listen to McCain talk then you will understand he is a Leftist and like the saying says "Birds of a feather flock together"(keating five).
All he ever says is "Send More Troops" "Drop BOMBS"
Pops

Dayton, OH

#33394 Aug 30, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Thing about those IOU's in West Virgina is they are meaningless because the SCOTUS ruled in 1937 in Helvering v. Davis that Social Security taxes collected are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than farm & corporate subsidies besides under section 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935 titled the Reservation of Power, Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time and the best thing is to eliminate Social Security all together.
I understand that. It just helps to make me cynical about ANY government control of just about anything.
To segue, That is a strong reason that I am against the ACA. Several parts of it are fine. But why does the 'government' need to control it with, of all entities, the IRS enforcing it? Why not just mandate that the insurance companies adjust coverages? Insurance companies already have the software, hardware, personnel, records & more. They also have more oversite than OUR government will ever have. They are like hiring the fox to watch the chicken coop. Just like SS collections & dispersal of said benefits.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33395 Aug 30, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>All he ever says is "Send More Troops" "Drop BOMBS"
that too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33396 Aug 30, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that. It just helps to make me cynical about ANY government control of just about anything.
To segue, That is a strong reason that I am against the ACA. Several parts of it are fine. But why does the 'government' need to control it with, of all entities, the IRS enforcing it? Why not just mandate that the insurance companies adjust coverages? Insurance companies already have the software, hardware, personnel, records & more. They also have more oversite than OUR government will ever have. They are like hiring the fox to watch the chicken coop. Just like SS collections & dispersal of said benefits.
Exactly, which is why I am like you and against any Government Social and Economical Control especially now with Obamacare which is nothing more than a big government spending program for the Health Insurance Industry which we all know the SCOTUS ruled that the individual mandate is a tax which then to the Liberals means there is no rights to Health Insurance either now since the Liberals ruled in 1960 in Flemming vs Nestor that individuals have no rights to Social Security for the simple fact that Social Security is based on a tax and can be eliminated which the Federal Government did to Nestor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do Republicans love Russian lovers more tha... 9 min MarkJ- 41
The Idealism of the U.S. Flag Deserves American... 12 min Sleep on it 8
Where are the Stink Bugs? 33 min Duke for Mayor 13
Hillary Rodham Clinton's book 36 min Too funny 8
Will Liberals Boycott Cotton? LOL 37 min Duke for Mayor 15
UTrashy & Spook 2 hr shadow_hunter 74
Why Obama Really Spied on Trump 3 hr Enter Username 63

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages