Soros: "I will give you millions to become POTUS."
Obama: "Under what conditions?"
Soros: "You destroy the value of the dollar in 12 months."
Obama: "Can I also devastate all private capital, savings, etc)?"
Soros: "Yes. And that's exactly what you need to do as only a real lefty can do it."
Obama: "It's a Deal."
.jpg)
9 comments:
Just because you are on the left, it does not mean you wish to destroy your country.
As I recall, South Africa, not exactly leftist by any stretch of the imagination, became a worldwide pariah.
El Salvador, Chile and Argentina, to name but three, had right wing regimes, which led to either civil war or the disappearances of family members.
Italy, Spain and Greece, had right wing regimes, which led to either civil war or again, disappearances and murder of those that happened to be on the left.
From what I can tell the right wing have done very well, in either starting or causing the implosion of their nations. To start and implicitly support policies which encourages people to become Communists, to my mind exemplifies all that is wrong with people that choose political dogma, over real democracy.
Again, by any stretch of the imagination, President Obama is not on the left, he is more of a centrist. Just because the right wing in the United States is almost off the spectrum politically, see Arlen Specter for some advice on that one, it does not mean that anyone to the left on them, is left of center.
You can support Government intervention and still be right wing, as you can support U.S. intervention abroad and be consider left wing.
Difference in political thinking is why parties succeed. Those that seek to end up marginalized, often find themselves on the outside looking in and can end up destroying precisely the things that they claim to value
Spotted dick, I have never been a fan of the George W. Bush Republican Party. I never voted for him and believe he and his ideology has been directly responsible for the rise of this leftist regime.
I am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and as such, I am without a party. But, one thing I am sure of, no society can endure for very long when the government takes from those who are productive and gives their remuneration to those who are not productive.
Socialism, and I do know the meaning, only works as long as other people's money is still available.
And one more point that you might think about: jealousy and hatred rise like smoke from those who can't rise with their peers.
I believe that confiscating other people's property to give to others breeds violence and destruction. Just look at Zimbabwe and so many of the African nations. Or look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We must be vigilant and not allow that to happen to our country.
Spotted dick, I have never been a fan of the George W. Bush Republican Party. I never voted for him and believe he and his ideology has been directly responsible for the rise of this leftist regime.
I am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and as such, I am without a party. But, one thing I am sure of, no society can endure for very long when the government takes from those who are productive and gives their remuneration to those who are not productive.
Socialism, and I do know the meaning, only works as long as other people's money is still available.
And one more point that you might think about: jealousy and hatred rise like smoke from those who can't rise with their peers.
I believe that confiscating other people's property to give to others breeds violence and destruction. Just look at Zimbabwe and so many of the African nations. Or look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We must be vigilant and not allow that to happen to our country.
Spotted dick, I have never been a fan of the George W. Bush Republican Party. I never voted for him and believe he and his ideology has been directly responsible for the rise of this leftist regime.
I am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and as such, I am without a party. But, one thing I am sure of, no society can endure for very long when the government takes from those who are productive and gives their remuneration to those who are not productive.
Socialism, and I do know the meaning, only works as long as other people's money is still available.
And one more point that you might think about: jealousy and hatred rise like smoke from those who can't rise with their peers.
I believe that confiscating other people's property to give to others breeds violence and destruction. Just look at Zimbabwe and so many of the African nations. Or look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We must be vigilant and not allow that to happen to our country.
Spotted dick, I have never been a fan of the George W. Bush Republican Party. I never voted for him and believe he and his ideology has been directly responsible for the rise of this leftist regime.
I am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and as such, I am without a party. But, one thing I am sure of, no society can endure for very long when the government takes from those who are productive and gives their remuneration to those who are not productive.
Socialism, and I do know the meaning, only works as long as other people's money is still available.
And one more point that you might think about: jealousy and hatred rise like smoke from those who can't rise with their peers.
I believe that confiscating other people's property to give to others breeds violence and destruction. Just look at Zimbabwe and so many of the African nations. Or look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We must be vigilant and not allow that to happen to our country.
Socialism is not just about redistributing wealth. Robbing the rich to give it to the poor, maybe called "Robin Hood" economics, but unless you are actually planning to do something good with the money, then perhaps it is rather pointless.
I have no problem with a progressive tax system and if I was earning $100,000 plus, then yes I would expect my taxes to be higher, than someone on say $20,000.
It is not jealousy that is the problem it is fairness. No I do not agree with the so called "Fair Tax" either. It would appear that the higher you get up the tax ladder the better the breaks you get. So you have the obscene situation of hedge fund managers paying less tax than the average taxpayer, how fair is that?
Socialism is not about confiscating property. Socialism is about equality and opportunity for all. Either way, neither is likely to happen in the United States.
Spotted Dick, obviously, you are not a student of the U.S. Constitution. Never in history has there been a government ruled with more equality and fairness than that of the USA. Our laws are applied equally and opportunity abounds. All one has to look at are the millions of immigrants to this country that are now living far better than they ever could or did in their countries of origin. Everyone wants to come here. People don't want to leave. If there were no equality or fairness, there would be an exodus. But what we don't need is a government like those of Europe, Africa, Asia or Latin America where the haves are few and control everything. You might take the time to study our history, our Constitution and then open your eyes and look at the luxuries most people have who live in this free country. I received highest honors when I graduated from Emory Law School and I won the Constitutional Law Award. I do know what I'm talking about.
I am very aware of the U.S. Constitution. I am also aware, which you do not seem to be, of the various treaties enacted in the European Union since 1957, which protects the rights of the people, and the sovereign nation. Unlike your constitution, European Union nations are free to secede at any time.
Never in history has a Government ruled with more equality and fairness than the USA.
So, what was the Civil Rights movement all about, because I may have missed the bit about all men being equal. Because, I just remember this part:
Article I, Section 2 read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Now excuse me, but didn't it take an amendment to change that. Was there not an amendment to give women the vote. Are there not now, scenes of desolation and despondency on various People of the First Nation reservations, throughout the United States. Tell me that you see the equality and fairness that you speak of.
As for your talk about immigrants, to move from a house without a roof, to a house that has a whole in its roof, does not mean everything is sunny and rosy. I am not surprised people emigrate here from South and Central America, due to the economic mismanagement of their countries.
But, you know, people emigrate to countries all over the world, Australia, New Zealand and yes even Socialist Europe. You make out that the only country that has immigration is the U.S. and that is just total nonsense.
I just do not recognize the Europe you are talking about here. If anything, I see more haves and elitist people having everything, from tax breaks, to third homes, than I ever did in Europe. I never met anyone that had 3 homes, let alone 2, nor had I met anyone that owned a boat.
As far as I am aware every country within the 29 nation EU has free elections and they are not dominated by an elitist group. In fact many EU nations are governed by coalitions, rather than giving their people the stark choice of two parties. Unlike in the U.S., where people seem to be running scared of religion, you can actually have the word in your party name. You can also set up a beer party if you want. I could if I wished stand for the European Parliament in a constituency in Italy or Poland.
Have you ever thought that people cannot leave as they cannot afford it. Really, go out in the street and ask people if you could go anywhere in the world if you could afford to, where would you go and see what they say.
People everywhere are governed by their circumstances. They may be in a position to move to another country, some come to the U.S. others to the UK, some to Germany. Just because they go there does not mean that the recipient country as better than the one they leave from, it is just more of a question of where they feel they are better off.
I would suggest you open your eyes, go and visit outside the United States and see countries that yes have problems, but where people do stay and live and may visit the United States, but at the end of their stay they return home. It does not mean that their country is better or worse, it just means more to them than the U.S.
Post a Comment