Forewarned: Europe is Living in Our Future

A prior Sonoran Alliance post covered Associate Justice Gingsberg’s appalling remarks about the US Constitution and her praise for the South African Constitution with its guarantees of food, water, shelter, healthcare, and social security listed as basic “human rights”.

What are the consequences of actually trying to make good on guarantees like that?   One need look no further than Europe.   Riots over entitlement cutbacks are now a common occurrence, and they are only the beginning.

How did Europe get itself into this mess?

If you’re an American older than 30, you may remember:

  • the hoopla over the formation of the European Union (EU), with some gleefully calling it “The United States of Europe“,
  • the predictions that America would soon have  to “move over” as the EU became the dominant economic power in the world, and
  • the herd of financial advisers recommending that American investors purchase EU stocks and funds or get left behind.

So where does the vaunted EU stand today?

The EU is tottering on the brink of financial collapse.  It has fallen victim to (1) the statist / collectivist / socialist infection that has sickened Europe for well over 100 years, and (2) the rampant entitlement mentality that European politicians have cultivated for over 60 years as they sought votes and power.

Regarding that entitlement mentality, you may have heard of:

In fact, entitlements have become so thoroughly embedded in EU cultures that they are now enshrined in the EU Constitution as human rights (something the Great American Left is working to emulate in our own country).

Predictably, over-taxed and over-regulated, the EU economies could not long generate the surplus wealth needed to pay for all their promised amenities.  With two full generations of citizens trained from birth to expect their state-granted “human rights”, it’s small wonder that any attempted cut-backs have been met with strikes, demonstrations, boycotts, and protests, including violent ones.

Now the jig is up.  It’s time to face the music.  Herman Van Rompuy himself, the President of the European Council, has put it crisply and clearly:

We cannot finance our social model.

Well,  if it’s any comfort, Mr. Rompuy, we in America can’t finance ours either.   Just our entitlement programs and debt service already consume all our tax revenue, and we’re desperately borrowing and printing over $4.7 billion per day to pay for the overrun as well as everything else.  And this is no temporary bump in the road.  With over 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, the deterioration is accelerating, seemingly without limit.

Why do so few Americans understand the true depth of this predicament?

Is it because the President and his spokespeople deliberately obscure the problem in a fog of class-envy-based lies that they think will serve them well in the upcoming election?  How many times have we heard that “if the wealthy would just pay their fair share”, we could get past our budget crisis?  It’s a self-serving canard, but millions of Americans still walk around believing it and repeating it.

Even if we were to cancel the demonized Bush-Obama tax cuts for all Americans (not just the wealthy), we’d only pay for about 28 minutesworth of our current level of borrowing per day.  What do we do about the other 23 hours and 32 minutes?  (For a fact-based presentation, see the Rep. David Schweikert video at this link, especially at time marker 07:36).

As Bill Whittle has shown, with his own unique sense of humor, even if we were to “eat the rich“, confiscating all their wealth, we could only cover our deficits for about one year.   And then what?

A few brave souls in Congress have come to understand our economic crisis in real terms with real numbers.  They’ve been trying to reach and teach the rest of Congress and all of America.  We need to help them by repeating their message to our fellow Americans just as loudly and as often as we can.  

But there’s more than that to do … much more.

It is the incumbent members of Congress who got our country into this mess.  It happened on their watch when they were supposed to be looking out for us and our children.  And the longer a Representative or Senator has been in office, the more culpable he (or she) is.

Therefore …

Whether Democrat or Republican, every incumbent should be held accountable and compelled by his constituents to answer these questions:

Where were you when these impossibly expensive programs were designed and approved?
Did you warn us?  Did you tell us what the debt would be to our children and grandchildren
Did you vote against the programs?  Have you worked to expose them?  What are you doing now to reform them?

If an incumbent cannot answer acceptably to his constituents, it is sufficient cause for him to announce he will not run again for office, go home at the end of his term, and not come back.  His district or state can then deal with finding a replacement candidate who will take his responsibility to his constituents seriously.  We especially need full replacement of the elitist lifetime legislative class representatives and senators who have betrayed us through negligence, lethargy, incompetence, or malfeasance.  We do not work for them.  They work for us.  Our message to them should be simple:  You’re fired!

What will happen if these politicians, especially Washington’s lifetime legislators, are not replaced? 

Take a good long look at Europe today.  As Member-of-European-Parliament Daniel Hannan has put it in his book The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America,

Europe is living in our future

We do not want to go there, and it’s up to us, We the People, to stop it from happening.

 


Comments

  1. Ron Paul has been saying this for FORTY YEARS. Meanwhile, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich were spending spending spending away.

    Ron Paul knows how to fix this. And he will. Real cuts. Big cuts. Now. To save this nation for our grandchildren.

    • Conservative American says

      Here’s Ron Paul’s fix for things:

      ” We need to take out the CIA.” – Ron Paul

      Watch the video of Pinko Paul saying it:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM

      Here’s another Ron Paul “fix” for things:

      Ron Paul: Pro Child-Predator Candidate

      Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
      Voted NO to mandatory life sentences for two-time child sex offenders.
      Voted NO to making visual illustrations of child pornography a crime.
      Voted NO to making it a crime to take a trip to a foreign country to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor.

      And here is a Ron Paul “fix” for Conservative social and family issues:

      “Ron Paul On Gay Marriage”

      “Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s libertarian roots came out full force during an interview with ABC’s 20/20.”

      “John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?”

      “Ron Paul: Sure”

      And here is Ron Paul doing his best to act “presidential”:

      “Ron Paul Suddenly Doesn’t Want to Talk to Reporters About His Racist Newsletters”

      “Ron Paul furrowed his eyebrows before storming off completely during a CNN interview addressing allegations that he made money and won fame with the help of a sometimes racist series of newsletters back in the 1990s.”

      “Borger, like a good journalist, pressed on for a few seconds before urging Paul to react to what people are saying about the two decade old allegations. “These things are pretty incendiary,” Borger said. “Because of people like you,” Paul snapped back, just before he pulled of his microphone and headed for the door.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-suddenly-doesnt-want-talk-reporters-racist-233746279.html

      So a President Paul would pack up his toys and go home if asked a question he didn’t want to answer. What a guy, LOL!

  2. Conservative American says

    Hi, dleeper47! 🙂

    As a note of interest, progressive income tax was proposed by Marx and Engels, in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, as one of the means of putting and end to Capitalism.

    American citizens can earn everything they need for themselves IF circumstances are set up to allow for that. Currently, circumstances are not set up to allow for that. Hence, we have all of these issues with entitlements and spending.

    Liberals benefit from circumstances which foster entitlements because they seek to develop a captive, entitlement-dependent class of voters. Big business benefits in cirumstances which foster entitlements because they can focus exclusively on generating maximum profits without having to operate in a social context as part of a nation.

    The key is to manage some basics of our economy, like inflation, so that citizens can provide for themselves. Failure to do that damages America and American citizens. The idea isn’t to foster an intrusive, meddling government. The idea is to see to it that our country doesn’t fail to work for those who do work. That requires dispassionate objectivity and wisdom, both of which are lacking in today’s Congress. That certainly does speak more to the foibles of human nature than to any difficulty in discerning the right path to follow.

    • Greetings, CA !

      To what you write, I can only say ‘amen’ and add:

      Those Marx/Engels utopian dreamers keep on trying despite all the failures — USSR, North Korea, Communist China, Cuba, Argentina, … You’d think just one of these attempts would have “found the right people” to make the Marx/Engels model work. Nope. Even the welfare-state socialist ‘hybrids’ like those in Western Europe are now descending into hell. Anywhere people put their faith in Big Govt and/or a Dear Leader, they ultimately get misery, violence, and tyranny.

      A liberal friend once asked me: “What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?” That sums up the liberal view pretty well.

      The basic purpose of govt is to protect us from force and fraud. Almost everything govt needs to do fits under those two headings, and that’s the license granted by “We the People” to the federal govt under the Constitution.

      It’s all those extra-bonus features from the Liberal Lifetime Legislative Class that have gotten us into so much trouble!

      • Conservative American says

        You will notice, dleeper47, that leftists, liberals and outright Communists always want to engage in some sort of esoteric, intellectual debate. The reason is that they want to avoid talking about the reality on the ground:

        “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

        “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

        “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

        http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

        The failure of Communism can be quantified by a body count.

        • True Conservative says

          Yup. Communism bad. Communism kills. Love that you’re so afraid of honest debate that you had to change the subject.

          That communism is bad doesn’t defeat my argument that you were engaging in poor logic and abysmal personal responsibility by stating that because communism was for something, we as conservatives must be against it.

          Take responsibility for your own life, your own compass. When you live as a reactionary you are, in essence, a rudderless human being. That is the life of the wingnut, not a true conservative.

          • Conservative American says

            First of all, TC, I was responding to dleeper47’s coment and not debating you. Get over it. Despite what you may think, you are not the center of the universe.

            As for the rest, it’s just your usual crapola.

            • True Conservative says

              You’ve never debated me.

              You’ve whined, lied and obfuscated, but you’ve never actually responded to a single argument I’ve made in any manner remotely approaching debate.

              • Conservative American says

                You’re going to do it, aren’t you. Several people have asked that we not engage in protracted debates but you’re going to do it again, aren’t you. And look at what you have posted in your comment…

                More subjective garbage, of interest to no one but you, in a petulant attempt to have the last word, as if that means something.

                What have you just added that is of any interest or value to anyone?

    • True Conservative says

      True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?

      Rather than live life as reactionaries, guiding our lives by what others do or do not do, we need to create our own set of principles and follow them, independent of the acts of others.

      Your mother once asked you “if all the kids were jumping off a bridge, would you jump as well.” The converse is equally true: “if all the kids are crossing at the cross-walk, would you refuse to cross there as well?”

      Care to know who else favored a progressive tax? Adam Smith, the father of capitalism.

      “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

      The majority of economists favor a progressive tax, not because they are evil, but because it is the only way to make our system work. No one has yet put forward a credible flat-tax plan.

      As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.

      A not B and C not A do not make B equal C.

      You will never be taken as a credible commentator so long as you refuse to accept that basis logic.

      BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?

  3. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

    Now that one is right out of the absolutely classic textbook of Communist debate tactics, LOL! Let’s analyze this little gem, shall we?

    This tactic is called “fasle logic” and it’s a close relative of “if/then”, “all/none” arguments. This tactic is used when the facts are on the opponent’s side. The purpose is to move away from cogent facts and into an esoteric intellectual argument unrelated to the issue at hand. Think of it as an emergency escape hatch, LOL! Let’s shred it!

    The basic key to dealing with this tactic is to REFOCUS back to the cogent facts, like this:

    We aren’t talking about whether or not to retain laws against murder, TC. We are talking about the fact that in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Marx and Engels advocated for a progressive income tax as a means of putting an end to Capitalism.

    I’ll let my comment on this point stand alone. Let’s see what TC comes up with to address my rebuttal of his Pinko argument. I’ll address another of TC’s points in my next comment.

  4. Conservative American says

    Now let’s move on to TC’s next “point”. TC wrote this: “Care to know who else favored a progressive tax? Adam Smith, the father of capitalism.” TC offers us a quote from Smith to “prove” his point. What is the problem with TC’s quote?

    When quoting from Adam Smith, as many do, it is incumbent on the writers to make clear the context, otherwise a particular statement by Adam Smith can be given a general meaning, in this case for all forms of taxation, when Adam Smith may have intended to refer to a particular case.

    Smith preferred that taxation should fall, where possible, on luxuries rather than basic necessities. Housing is a necessity but housing came in all levels of opulence and was therefore treatable as a luxury for some taxpayers, who in consequence should pay more tax on their houses and palaces.

    So, did Adam Smith really favor a progressive tax? No!

    “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.” – Adam Smith

    Taxation in proportion to revenue isn’t progressive taxation, it’s PROPORTIONAL taxation—in modern terminology, a flat tax. The quote not only isn’t evidence for the claim, it’s evidence against it—important evidence, since it is the first of the maxims of taxation with which Smith introduces his discussion of possible taxes.

    Now TC knows this which is precisely why his next comments are to attempt to preemptively attack a flat tax. We’ll deal with his “arguments” about that next!

    • True Conservative says

      Yea, 200+ years of economic study says otherwise, but now that your political viewpoint needs to be contrary to all those PhD’s, we’ll immediately switch over to you less-than-customary reading of Adam Smith’s words. /sarcasm

      • Conservative American says

        Dear SA readers:

        Notice how TC avoids debating specifics and resorts to “glittering generalities” instead. You will also notice that everything in the above comment is subjective opinion, completely devoid of any documented facts to support it.

  5. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “The majority of economists favor a progressive tax, not because they are evil, but because it is the only way to make our system work.”

    Have proof, TC, or is that merely your subjective assertion? What difference does it make even if the majority of economists favor a progressive tax? That doesn’t mean that a progressive tax is the best way to go.

    TC wrote: “No one has yet put forward a credible flat-tax plan.”

    Have proof, TC, or is that merely your subjective assertion?

    Next, we get to the REALLY good part where TC defends Marx and Communism and seeks to define for us, from the Communist perspective, what Conservatism is. Le’ts address that!

    • True Conservative says

      I have defended neither Marx nor communism, and if you were an honest person you wouldn’t have made that false accusation.

      A not B and C not A does not mean B equals C.

      Thanks for reminding us that you’re a nothing more than a liar.

      • Conservative American says

        Dear SA redears:

        First note that TC has again resorted to name-calling. “Thanks for reminding us that you’re a nothing more than a liar.” It’s another example of the classic Pinko tactic of personally attacking your opponent when you can’t win based upon the facts.

        TC wrote: “I have defended neither Marx nor communism…”

        But TC wrote these comments:

        “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

        “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

        “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

  6. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens. It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

    Here we see yet more textbook, classic, Communist debate tactics.The purpose is, yet once again, to attempt to escape fact and to engage in meaningless, esoteric intellectual debate. In other words, it is yet another attempt to baffle readers with BS. Let’s shred it!

    I did not say that our goal is to oppose everything which Marx supprted. TC, as is his habit, has attempted to speak for me and to put words in my mouth. I spoke only about Marx and Engels supporting a progressive tax as a means of putting an end to Capitalism. THAT is the issue at hand.

    Coming from the Communist point of view, TC defines Conservatism for us:

    “As conservatives, our goal is to minimize and make as fair as possible the tax burdens.”

    So while TC wants to generalize about Marx, talking about “everything Marx supported”, he wants to be very specific about Conservatism and taxes. This mixing of “apples and oranges” is purposefully disingenuous. If we speak in general terms about Conservatism, as TC is speaking in general terms about Marx, Conservatism also includes opposing Communist ideology and being supportive of Capitalism.

    TC wrote: “You will never be taken as a credible commentator so long as you refuse to accept that basis logic.”

    This is simple, everyday liberal fare. If you can’t win on the facts, seek to discredit your opponent. Given as this is simply TC’s subjective, personal opinion, it means nothing. TC is obviously confusing me with someone who cares what a Pinko thinks.

    TC wrote: “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

    Here TC breaks down and openly launches into a defense of Karl Marx and his Communist ideology. Again, it demonstrates the standard, disingenuous Communist debate tactics which we have already seen. Let’s break this one down and have a closer look, shall we?

    This is TC’s “logic”:

    Karl Marx was a Communist. Karl Marx drank milk. Therefore, all people who drink milk are Communists.

    The conclusion is absurd on the face of it and that is supposed to get Marx off the hook for being Communist. Of course, this is simply another example of the Communist debate tactic known as “false logic”.

    Here is sound logic:

    Karl Marx was a Communist. Karl Marx drank milk. Therefore, SOME people who drink milk are Communists.

    The fact that Karl Marx drank milk does not negate the fact that he was a Communist.

    TC has finally flown his true colors here, offering an overt defense of Karl Marx and his Communist ideology. When confronted repeatedly, over time, Pinkos always eventually break down and fly their Red flag. THIS is why I have repeatedly, across time, debunked TC’s covert defenses of Communist ideology. With TC’s overt defense of Karl Marx, he has removed all doubt that he is, in fact and in reality, a Communist sympathizer.

    • True Conservative says

      That you don’t understand my how silly you sound regarding my comments on your logic (perhaps you missed the question marks, conveying sarcasm) informs us how poor is your reading comprehension.

      Try again …

      • Conservative American says

        No, TC, you try again, LOL! 🙂

        Just more insults. The usual TC fare.

        Move along, folks, there’s nothing to see there.

  7. Conservative American says

    And since TC insists on continuing to flap it’s trap, let’s look at who shares TC’s views regarding Adam Smith…

    “Adam Smith favored progressive taxation”

    “by bay arizona”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/21/795604/-Adam-Smith-favored-progressive-taxation

    Yes, Folks, directly from the “progressive” Democrat blog, Daily Kos, you can read how the liberals who post there support TC’s views on Adam Smith 100%!

    “True Conservative”? I don’t think so, LOL!

    • True Conservative says

      Still rudderless?

      A not B and C not A does not make B equals C.

      You need to lead a life driven by your principles, not by opposing the life of others.

      If the DailyKos ran an article against Child Porn, would you suddenly support it?

      • Conservative American says

        ROFL! You such a TC, LOL! All you do is to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

        Alright, TC, you want to repeat? You want to engage in flaming again? You’ve got it, Pinko!

        And since TC insists on continuing to flap it’s trap, let’s look at who shares TC’s views regarding Adam Smith…

        “Adam Smith favored progressive taxation”

        “by bay arizona”

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/21/795604/-Adam-Smith-favored-progressive-taxation

        Yes, Folks, directly from the “progressive” Democrat blog, Daily Kos, you can read how the liberals who post there support TC’s views on Adam Smith 100%!

        “True Conservative”? I don’t think so, LOL!

  8. Conservative American says

    Let’s look at the content of TC’s recent posts to see what they have added of value to the discussion and debate:

    “True Conservative says:
    February 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm”

    “That you don’t understand my how silly you sound regarding my comments on your logic (perhaps you missed the question marks, conveying sarcasm) informs us how poor is your reading comprehension.”

    “Try again …”

    “True Conservative says:
    February 27, 2012 at 12:10 am”

    “Still rudderless?”

    “A not B and C not A does not make B equals C.”

    “You need to lead a life driven by your principles, not by opposing the life of others.”

    “If the DailyKos ran an article against Child Porn, would you suddenly support it?” (NOTE: Classic Commie “if/then” debate tactic)

    “True Conservative says:
    February 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm”

    “I have defended neither Marx nor communism, and if you were an honest person you wouldn’t have made that false accusation.”

    “A not B and C not A does not mean B equals C.”

    “Thanks for reminding us that you’re a nothing more than a liar.”

    And so it goes… on and on and on… devoid of objective facts. THIS is how threads end up being full of garbage when TC loses a debate. Like a child in one of those “did not/did to” arguments, TC is going to get a pound of flesh from SA and SA readers as solace for his loss.

  9. Conservative American says

    Since TC wants to keep this going, let’s look at TC’s most recent Communist debate tactic, put a name on it and see how it works.

    TC wrote: “If the DailyKos ran an article against Child Porn, would you suddenly support it?”

    This is called the “if/then” tactic. It’s purpose is to move the opponent away from the cogent facts and to baffle readers with BS. It’s irrelevant because it is a HYPOTHETICAL and THAT is how it serves to move things away from the cogent facts and reality.

    It is, of course, meaningless because it can be used at any time, under any circumstance by either side of a debate and proves or resolves nothing. Let’s have fun and create some “if/then” examples of our own!

    Conservative: “California and Maine voted to ban homosexual “marriage”.”

    Communist: “IF California and Maine voted to ban automobiles, would you THEN support that?”

    Conservative: “Eric Holder is refusing to defend DOMA, legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.”

    Communist: “IF Congress passed and a president signed a law legalizing incest, would you THEN expect the Attorney General to defend it?”

    Conservative: “Homosexual “marriage” was defeated by 53% to 47% in a ballot initiative in Maine.”

    Communist: “IF the right to marry were granted only to those in Maine who agreed to have children, would you THEN support that?

    ROFL! Get to know these tactics, Conservatives! They are the bread and butter of liberals, leftists and outright Communists! If you aren’t familiar with them and don’t know how to shoot them down, you will be stymied by radical, left wing, liberal propagandists again and again!

    Always watch for “if/then” arguments. Look for the HYPOTHETICAL aspect of such arguments. Bring the discussion back to the actual, real life issue at hand. Then you’ll never be stymied by the propagandists of the radical liberal left!

    • True Conservative says

      Your comments are mind-numbing and demonstrate you did either did not read or did not understand the rather basic argument I put forward.

      Seriously, how does one argue with a child who can’t understand English? That’s the challenge with having a discussion with you.

      • Conservative American says

        Dear SA readers:

        Notice that AGAIN, TC has made yet another comment devoid of fact and full of insults which adds absolutely NOTHING to the discussion.

        THIS is why when ever there is a debate or discussion with TC, the thread becomes long and full of meaningless garbage. TC is determined to get his pound of flesh from SA and from SA readers as solace for having had his clock cleaned in a debate.

  10. Conservative American says

    Since TC STILL wants to continue on with this, let’s shred ANOTHER TC tactic. Keep it up, TC, the shredder never sleeps, LOL!

    TC wrote: “If the DailyKos ran an article against Child Porn, would you suddenly support it?”

    Here’s how to handle THIS disingenuous Communist tactic; refocus back to reality like this:

    We’re not talking about child porn, TC. We’re talking about the fact that liberal posters at the “progressive” Democrat blog, Daily Kos, support 100% your position that Adam Smith favored a progressive tax.

    And TC, having been busted yet again, runs off with it’s tail between it’s legs, LOL! THAT is how to dispense with Communist tactics!

  11. You fail to understand my rather simple argument:

    1) It’s not about what your opposition is doing, it’s about what your principles, morals and ethics guide you to do. Why do you disagree?

    2) Just because your opposition opposes/supports something doesn’t mean you can’t do the same. Why do you disagree?

    3) You wingnuts take a lot of heat from the left because you say dumb things, giving them opportunity to a) tarnish all conservatives and b) change the discussion. That’s why wingnuts should never be allowed to speak as if they are conservatives. This, we know why you disagree – because you lead an unexamined life.

    The tertiary point, above, is actually the most important.

    When you drag out the old chestnut of “that’s commie-talk” all you do is make people in the middle – the one whose votes we need – roll their eyes and create a false topic of debate.

    That is doubly true when the “commie-claim” is so easily defeated, as here, and WHEN IT DOESN’T EVEN MATTER TO THE LARGER ISSUE.

    The debate isn’t about how did we get here, it’s about where are we going. For 200 years Adam Smith has been known as an advocate of a progressive tax. Marx for less time, but nonetheless a supporter as well. The simple truth is that in America both (R) and (D), conservative and communist, have supported a progressive tax for nearly a century, since the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

    A simplier truth is that from that century we now know the progressive tax is inefficient and unfair. The debate is whether its nonetheless the best we can do.

    If there is a better system, let’s bring it out, beat it around, fine tune-it. We need to offer a better solution as a catalyst for change. That is how we can win change

    In contrast, your cringe-worthy “commie-claims” just turns-off intelligent people. It’s blamestorming. It’s unnecessary. It’s unpersuasive. It’s bad for conservatives.

    Finally, using logic and reason is not a communist tactic. Just because you lack the ability to do something doesn’t mean only communist can do it. (see above.)

    And that is how you dispense with spammy wingnuts.

  12. Conservative American says

    So I see that you want to keep at it, TC, and create yet another endless thread which no one is interested in but you. Fine. I’ll accomodate you.

    TC wrote: “1) It’s not about what your opposition is doing, it’s about what your principles, morals and ethics guide you to do. Why do you disagree?”

    It sounds like what you are saying is that my principles, morals and ethics would not guide me to address what the opposition is doing. That, however, is precisely what my principles morals and ethics guide me to do.

    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” – Edmund Burke

    Associate to do what? Associate to deal with those who oppose the principled, moral, ethical ways of good men. You wrote, “…your opposition…” They stand in opposition and will have their way unless there is intervention.

    TC wrote: “2) Just because your opposition opposes/supports something doesn’t mean you can’t do the same. Why do you disagree?

    Please be specific, TC. What is it which is being opposed or supported? Please provide examples of what is it you are referring to.

    The rest is the usual Pinko TC garbage which everyone who reads this blog has heard from you hundreds of times before. What is new is that you wrote this:

    “True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

    “It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

    “BTW: Karl Marx also drank milk. Should we all join PETA now to demonstrate how anti-Marx we are?”

    I think that readers can easily discern for themselves how “Conservative” you are based on your own written words, TC. 😉

  13. Conservative American says

    Since TC is determined to continue, let’s shred some more of his Communist tactics.

    TC wrote: ““True, Marx advocated a progressive income tax. He also advocated retaining laws against crimes such as murder. Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

    This tactic is called “substitution”. The idea is to substitute one issue for another. This is an “emergency” tactic used by Communists when they are getting their clock cleaned by the objective facts. Let’s look at how TC used it in this instance.

    The issue is the support of Marx and Engels for a progressive income tax which they hoped would serve their goal of eliminating our economic system; Capitalism. TC has attempted to SUBSTITUTE the issue of laws against murder and ends with the question, “Should we oppose murder laws now as well?”

    Look how far TC has gotten away from the subject at hand with merely three sentences, LOL!

    This is how Communists operate. They have to operate in that manner becuause truth is not on their side. Everything is false and has to be made to appear to be true. Don’t let Pinkos baffle you with their intellectual gymnastics. Stick to the issue at hand. 😉

Leave a Reply