PDA

View Full Version : How to win support from the pissed off left




Athena
07-26-2011, 12:57 AM
I am a leftist. But I very well might vote for Ron Paul, and here's why, and here's how I think you should consider approaching the angry left:

1) Obama is as bad or worse than Bush, from a Leftie POV (wars, empire building, executive executions without trial, killing the social safety net, etc.). The lefties who are Really Mad at Obama know this. Republicans could never have created a fake economic crisis to cut social security the way Obama has.

2) There is no argument to be made that Obama/Bush is better than Ron Paul for our (leftists) objectives.

Ron Paul hold some ideas that we on the left consider to be kooky, but if he were president, he wouldn't be able to move us back to the gold standard, etc.

If any of you have direct contact with Paul, I strongly urge you to urge him to pick a leftie VP, too. And if that happens, be 100% transparent about the compromises they make for a united position. Because pissed off progressives and libertarians do have some irreconcilable differences when it comes to the role of government, but we can meet in the middle and call a truce on the controversial stuff, and mutually drive a steak in the heart of the evil, corrupt vampires killing our democracy and murdering brown people all over the world with our own tax dollars.

AlexAmore
07-26-2011, 01:06 AM
I have a question from your perspective because I'm assuming you have left-leaning friends and networks you belong too. What is the general discussion like regarding Obama? For example, topics hit on a lot, generally positive/negative...etc

Thanks for your support.

P.S I can't believe you're a leftist and can spend time on these boards without blowing your brains out! LOL. Well done.

Matthew Zak
07-26-2011, 01:20 AM
Most leftists I know are blindly apologetic to Obama, and are completely convinced (because the TV told them) that Ron Paul is crazy.

Nate
07-26-2011, 01:42 AM
"Leftists" with principles & morals are VERY pissed off. I know one anti-war leftist who is a very good friend of mine who spits on the ground (if we are outside, inside he just makes a spitting sound) & says "fucking house n*****" (he's a black dude) whenever someone mentions Obama's name. He doesn't care where we are either, almost got into a fight on the train 2 weeks ago because of it. I've turned him into a Blue Republican because he absolutely loves Ron Paul on everything but economics & even on that he respects his view, just disagrees (I'm slowly breaking him down on that part though by explaining market regulation vs State regulation). Although he likes Paul's take on spending the money saved on ending the Empire on the social programs back here at home in order to honor the promises made to the people who depend on them. He also likes how Paul takes on the bankers.

Non-principled "leftists" are just blue team cheering partisan morons similar to their red team counterparts. They are the types that Matthew Zak is referring to. There is no hope for them, just scrape them off the bottom of your shoe like the pieces of dog shit that they are & move on.

Athena
07-26-2011, 01:49 AM
I have a question from your perspective because I'm assuming you have left-leaning friends and networks you belong too. What is the general discussion like regarding Obama? For example, topics hit on a lot, generally positive/negative...etc

Thanks for your support.

P.S I can't believe you're a leftist and can spend time on these boards without blowing your brains out! LOL. Well done.

We hate him even more than we hated Bush.
Obama IS Bush, but he tricked us into thinking he was a leftist. Obama is clearly a neoconservative Wall Street bankster, "brown people" torturing military industrial complex whore. A lot of us are just horrified about what we voted in, and we're sorry.

Nate
07-26-2011, 01:53 AM
We hate him even more than we hated Bush.
Obama IS Bush, but he tricked us into thinking he was a leftist. Obama is clearly a neoconservative Wall Street bankster, "brown people" torturing military industrial complex whore. A lot of us are just horrified about what we voted in, and we're sorry.

See, that's what I'm talking about, a principled "leftist". You kick ass. +rep

Athena
07-26-2011, 02:05 AM
"Leftists" with principles & morals are VERY pissed off. I know one anti-war leftist who is a very good friend of mine who spits on the ground (if we are outside, inside he just makes a spitting sound) & says "fucking house n*****" (he's a black dude) whenever someone mentions Obama's name. He doesn't care where we are either, almost got into a fight on the train 2 weeks ago because of it. I've turned him into a Blue Republican because he absolutely loves Ron Paul on everything but economics & even on that he respects his view, just disagrees (I'm slowly breaking him down on that part though by explaining market regulation vs State regulation). Although he likes Paul's take on spending the money saved on ending the Empire on the social programs back here at home in order to honor the promises made to the people who depend on them. He also likes how Paul takes on the bankers.

Non-principled "leftists" are just blue team cheering partisan morons similar to their red team counterparts. They are the types that Matthew Zak is referring to. There is no hope for them, just scrape them off the bottom of your shoe like the pieces of dog shit that they are & move on.

Thank you, and yes.
People actually paying attention see that everything, well, evil about Bush has been MAGNIFIED under the Obama regime. Obama was a total fraud for the left. The move to serfdom is being called "centricism" and "being pragmatic".

WTF?

It's like the left/right thing doesn't even hold any meaning any more when Obama, who was portrayed by the media as some sort of radical communist, turns out to be more George Bush neoconservative/ neoliberal fascism.

junkmonkey
07-26-2011, 02:09 AM
The bigger question is how to convince the rest of the left that Obomba is a mass murdering bankster tyrant. I wonder how I would feel if I was still a socialist...

guitarlifter
07-26-2011, 02:15 AM
We hate him even more than we hated Bush.
Obama IS Bush, but he tricked us into thinking he was a leftist. Obama is clearly a neoconservative Wall Street bankster, "brown people" torturing military industrial complex whore. A lot of us are just horrified about what we voted in, and we're sorry.

Well, regardless of whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, one thing is true; with Ron Paul, what you see is what you get. No horseshit like what Obama pulled. Before I knew a lick about politics and was 18 or 19 years old, I thought that, if I didn't agree with the right, then I must be left, which is also why I voted for Obama. That logic is about as horrifying as Obama himself. Okay. Maybe not, but you get the picture. I thought I was left because I agreed with individual freedom, but I soon realized that I disagreed with just as much stuff on the left's side that I disagreed with on the right's side and vice versa.

I liked the individual freedom to do what one wants so long as they don't harm another, and I also liked the idea of doing what ever one wants with their money and not being subject to taxation. So I liked the personal freedom of the left, but the economic freedom of the right. I then thought I was a moderate, but that's not quite right either. I eventually met someone who I later looked up on facebook. I clicked on his profile and noticed that his political views were listed as "libertarian." I researched that term, and the rest is history.

But anyhow, yes, I am also horrified with Obama. He stands for just about everything that I am against. He hates personal liberty, civil rights, and he loves war and an insatiable welfare state.

Not that I'm trying to convert you, but I'd strongly suggest maybe listening to some more conversation about the libertarian ideology even if you have already. Many people come from different angles as to why they believe in it. I personally accepted libertarianism because of my Christian faith and what it message it represents.

Athena
07-26-2011, 02:22 AM
The bigger question is how to convince the rest of the left that Obomba is a mass murdering bankster tyrant. I wonder how I would feel if I was still a socialist...

The only thing I can think of is to persuade the youngish journalists within the MSM. I don't know *how* to do that, tho.
But this is worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg&feature=channel_video_title

Rudeman
07-26-2011, 02:34 AM
I know of a few people who voted for Obama that would consider voting for RP over Obama in 2012, unfortunately they also think he has no chance of winning the GOP.

Things like he's honest, his foreign policy, personal liberties are good selling points. You may not agree with him 100% but at least you know what you're getting. I think the key is convincing Liberals he won't destroy SS and medicare.

We really need to push his predictions to the forefront, it goes a long way in giving him credibility to those who aren't convinced. At least it gets them thinking about it.

Athena
07-26-2011, 02:43 AM
Well, regardless of whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, one thing is true; with Ron Paul, what you see is what you get. No horseshit like what Obama pulled. Before I knew a lick about politics and was 18 or 19 years old, I thought that, if I didn't agree with the right, then I must be left, which is also why I voted for Obama. That logic is about as horrifying as Obama himself. Okay. Maybe not, but you get the picture. I thought I was left because I agreed with individual freedom, but I soon realized that I disagreed with just as much stuff on the left's side that I disagreed with on the right's side and vice versa.

I liked the individual freedom to do what one wants so long as they don't harm another, and I also liked the idea of doing what ever one wants with their money and not being subject to taxation. So I liked the personal freedom of the left, but the economic freedom of the right. I then thought I was a moderate, but that's not quite right either. I eventually met someone who I later looked up on facebook. I clicked on his profile and noticed that his political views were listed as "libertarian." I researched that term, and the rest is history.

But anyhow, yes, I am also horrified with Obama. He stands for just about everything that I am against. He hates personal liberty, civil rights, and he loves war and an insatiable welfare state.

Not that I'm trying to convert you, but I'd strongly suggest maybe listening to some more conversation about the libertarian ideology even if you have already. Many people come from different angles as to why they believe in it. I personally accepted libertarianism because of my Christian faith and what it message it represents.

Well, I'm a former libertarian who was raised Republican, turned Democrat, turned Libertarian, turned (apparently) partly-less left. I'm a skeptic, and I don't think Austrian economics "works" better than Dean Baker's (or even Krugman's) economics.

I also think "we" leftists have fundamental moral differences with "you" libertarians in terms of "the taxation cost of living in a civilized society where old people aren't left to starve and property rights are defended by socialized police forces."

I used to be a libertarian; I'm not any more. Libertarianism still holds a soft spot in my heart, tho.

Athena
07-26-2011, 02:57 AM
I know of a few people who voted for Obama that would consider voting for RP over Obama in 2012, unfortunately they also think he has no chance of winning the GOP.

Things like he's honest, his foreign policy, personal liberties are good selling points. You may not agree with him 100% but at least you know what you're getting. I think the key is convincing Liberals he won't destroy SS and medicare.

We really need to push his predictions to the forefront, it goes a long way in giving him credibility to those who aren't convinced. At least it gets them thinking about it.

The bolded would be crucial. But he has to be for-real about it.

Nate
07-26-2011, 03:02 AM
I also think "we" leftists have fundamental moral differences with "you" libertarians in terms of "the taxation cost of living in a civilized society where old people aren't left to starve and property rights are defended by socialized police forces."

Old people would not be "left to starve" in a free society. There is this great thing called charity & mutual aid. You don't need to put guns in people's faces & steal their money in order to feed old people. That is our fundamental moral difference, "we" believe that you don't need to rob people in order to feed people. Ask people for their money & you'll more than likely get it. "Charity" based on theft & violence IS NOT CIVILIZED.

Athena
07-26-2011, 03:16 AM
Old people would not be "left to starve" in a free society. There is this great thing called charity & mutual aid. You don't need to put guns in people's faces & steal their money in order to feed old people. That is our fundamental moral difference, "we" believe that you don't need to rob people in order to feed people. Ask people for their money & you'll more than likely get it. "Charity" based on theft & violence IS NOT CIVILIZED.

And see, that's the difference between us. Do you know what happened to old folks before Social Security? Ever read about the "poor house" or the "poor farm "? Know how they were funded?

Athena
07-26-2011, 03:24 AM
Hell, Nate...
Ever hear about "decreasing the surplus population" via death?
The Fed intentionally creates unemployment to keep "wage inflation" low.

Nate
07-26-2011, 03:24 AM
And see, that's the difference between us. Do you know what happened to old folks before Social Security? Ever read about the "poor house" or the "poor farm "? Know how they were funded?

Let's see how that ponzi scheme works out for all those old people that are so "well taken care of" now before you talk about how great it is for old people. That's why so many old people are having to go back to work because of their devalued SS checks. Please tell me about the horror stories before the all mighty benevolent State was there to provide for them by committing violence in their name & then spending all that money on wars & corporate welfare. Get your hand out of my pocket before you try to take the moral high ground. You want to help old people then fine but you have NO RIGHT to take from others at the point of a gun in order to fund it.

Nate
07-26-2011, 03:29 AM
Social Security was a scam from the very beginning. Nothing more than a ponzi scheme that can never work.

Athena
07-26-2011, 03:33 AM
Let's see how that ponzi scheme works out for all those old people that are so "well taken care of" now before you talk about how great it is for old people. That's why so many old people are having to go back to work because of their devalued SS checks. Please tell me about the horror stories before the all mighty benevolent State was there to provide for them by committing violence in their name & then spending all that money on wars & corporate welfare. Get your hand out of my pocket before you try to take the moral high ground.

Are you even aware of the fact that Social Security is fully funded and solvent for the next three decades?
Really, are you?

Athena
07-26-2011, 03:42 AM
Social Security was a scam from the very beginning. Nothing more than a ponzi scheme that can never work.

It's a redistribution of money from the young to the old. Socialism. Diabolical, I know. lol. With its self-funded tax that's a contact between generations ans all, it's pure evil. Much better to let the elderly starve, like in the good old days before it was clear that the rich were worthy and the elderly poor were losers.

Heh.

Nate
07-26-2011, 03:42 AM
Are you even aware of the fact that Social Security is fully funded and solvent for the next three decades?
Really, are you?

Fully funded?!?!? For 3 decades?!?! HAHA, yeah ok. Whatever, I'm done here. Have fun in fantasy land where the government is 54 trillion dollars in debt yet has enough money to fund SS for the next 3 decades. It is a ponzi scheme that can only be funded by taking in money from current workers.

Nate
07-26-2011, 03:47 AM
double post

Nate
07-26-2011, 04:00 AM
It's a redistribution of money from the young to the old. Socialism.
Theft. I don't care what you call it. That Orwellian crap won't work here.


Diabolical, I know. It's theft.


With its self-funded tax that's a contact between generations ans all, it's pure evil.

It's funded by stealing from one group to give to another. That is theft.


Much better to let the elderly starve, like in the good old days before it was clear that the rich were worthy and the elderly poor were losers.

Hyperbole. Way to knock down that strawman that libertarians want to watch old people starve. How many charities have you donated to that has fed poor old people or just people in general? I've donated to over a dozen & volunteer at 2 different shelters. You see, when I advocate trying to feed disadvantaged people I don't steal the money to fund it from others, I put my money where my mouth is or I run a donation drive.


Heh. Laugh all you want, advocating violence & thievery is not a laughing matter.

bunklocoempire
07-26-2011, 05:14 AM
Old people would not be "left to starve" in a free society. There is this great thing called charity & mutual aid. You don't need to put guns in people's faces & steal their money in order to feed old people. That is our fundamental moral difference, "we" believe that you don't need to rob people in order to feed people. Ask people for their money & you'll more than likely get it. "Charity" based on theft & violence IS NOT CIVILIZED.

Damn straight.

"Charity" based on theft & violence is blasphemously called "aloha" by our current TARP votin' masters out here in Hawaii. The TARP voting big wigs (Inouye, Akaka, Hirono, Hanabusa, Abercrombie) that currently run these islands have convinced (bribed) the most isolated group of Americans in the world that big government is the only way one is able to take care of their fellow man.

Think about that for a minute. A population on an island chain, depending on one another and surviving a plantation like existence for years, and then almost over night supposedly NOT being able to take care of one another through any other means than big government.:confused:

Complete bullshit.:mad:

Short history lesson, the Kingdom of Hawaii was being sucked into the U.S. by some slime ball corporatist mofos, then of course the labor movement came to save the day and finished the job.:rolleyes:

In reality, one form of slavery became too frickin' obvious.:cool:

With all the government theft out here (state AND fed), we still take care of our neighbors. And we will continue to do so.

If others can't pull it off in their own areas, they aren't trying. If they aren't trying, they shouldn't expect someone out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to contribute to their lack of aloha for their fellow man or vice versa.





Bunkloco

AuH20
07-26-2011, 07:31 AM
And see, that's the difference between us. Do you know what happened to old folks before Social Security? Ever read about the "poor house" or the "poor farm "? Know how they were funded?

Sons and daughters who let their parents starve in their old age are irredeemable.

VBRonPaulFan
07-26-2011, 07:43 AM
great... this went from someone trying to help our cause to a bunch of members attacking his positions. maybe you guys could take this argument to another thread?

Nate
07-26-2011, 08:06 AM
great... this went from someone trying to help our cause to a bunch of members attacking his positions. maybe you guys could take this argument to another thread?

I attacked his statement that libertarians want to just sit back & let old people starve. That is hyperbole, a strawman argument & an attack on the character of every person who identifies with the philosophy of libertarianism. Before that I was loving everything he said & even gave him +rep but when you make an asinine statement like that on a board full of libertarians you can't expect to not be challenged on it.

I personally found it offensive since I volunteer most of my free time at shelters feeding people who society has forgotten about. I've lived on welfare, lived in the projects & spent a few years of my life never knowing where my next meal was coming from. It's a life of dependency on the bureaucratic State & I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Welfare is a curse not a blessing. I know because I've lived it.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 08:33 AM
Welcome, Athena. Glad to know we're getting through.

You see, we've been at this a minute. Like, I posted a thread on the topic so many years ago you can't even find it now. It's archived.

Now that you've made the leap of faith and come to the lions' den, let me help you get up to speed, here. For many, many decades social programs in this country, where not done exclusively by charity, were generally handled on the county level, and occasionally the state level. This worked better because this is where the 'boots on the ground' are, this is where the local needs are known, and all the federal government has EVER done is take our money and redistributte it to counties in accordance to their ability to fill out federal paperwork and jump through federal hoops. It isn't helpful. It's just a federal power grab. That's all.

So, isn't the wealth redistribution good for poor states? Mostly the wealth redistribution is to Washington. They do take one hell of a cut. But, no; when the poor states are forced to use the extra money hiring grant proposal writers and doing things that are of no particular benefit ot their local needy, they don't gain at all.

Think of the Western European model that so many liberals hold so high. Name me a western European country that is as big as Texas. Can't do it, can you? So, state control of this stuff IS the Western European model. Federal control of this stuff is the Soviet model. Which worked out better?

Now consider this. You are a corporation, Monsanto say, and you want control of some aspect of America (be it agriculure or the way we give benefits to the needy, or anything else). Is it easier for you to buy influence in fifty state legislatures and a number of territorial governments, or is it easier for you to go to an overly and unConstitutionally strong Washington, D.C. for one-stop shopping? This is why our principles have practical benefit for those who are sick of the rampant corporatism. That's why our preference for state regulation over Washington regulation is the anti-corporatist stance, much more than either the position of the neocons or the position of the Democrats.

Hope this is helpful to your fine efforts on behalf of our 'cult of integrity' and our genuinely honest man. If there's anything more I can do to help you, here's where you'll find me!

As for the rest of you, do you want to get this man the nomination? Because your neocon friends are slow to wake the hell up, as I've seen you lament here many, many times, and you know it's none of your business if the people of, say, New Jersey conduct as much 'socialist' experimentation as they wish--and there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it either. So, please, will you freaking stop trying to chase our allies away with your piss-poor 'ha ha I'm done with you' pseudo-debate bull already?

Thank you ever so much for saving your salvoes for the flipping enemy instead of our allies. :rolleyes:

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 08:43 AM
The bolded would be crucial. But he has to be for-real about it.

He has publicly stated many, many times that he wants to give the young a chance to opt out of SSI and Medicare and find better alternatives on the free market (if only we can have an actual free market for this stuff, unlike now). He has also said that it must be preserved for those who have had no choice but to fund them for many, many years, and now have no choice but to depend upon them. This is what he means by 'phasing them out'.

And, yes, he's absolutely for real about it. His word has been his bond since, if I'm guessing correctly, before you were born. Check his record.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 08:46 AM
Are you even aware of the fact that Social Security is fully funded and solvent for the next three decades?
Really, are you?

Don't be so sure. This is why Ron Paul has said for years that it could be phased out, but then Dubya did his famous file cabinet photo op and borrowed against the SSI trust fund for his splendid little wars. If we can pay this back, then yes, SSI is funded for some time from the trust fund.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 08:54 AM
Most leftists I know are blindly apologetic to Obama, and are completely convinced (because the TV told them) that Ron Paul is crazy.

Most right wingers I know are blindly apologetic for Dubya and conpletely convinced (because the TV told them) that Ron Paul is crazy.

So maybe instead of letting the TV's false left-right paradigm cause us to give up, we should seperate the wheat from the chaff another way--like going after those on both the left and the right who can see past the televised maird. And that involves doing something more productive than pouncing on the chance to attack potential allies with the tired and disproven, but comfortable, old false left-right paradigm b.s.

Doesn't it?

The enemy is not here. It's there. And if the enemy you're best equipped to persuade are the neocon followers, and those are the ones you can best make into friends, then stop wasting your time on Athena. Because he or she (I assume you're a goddess?) has got the chops to persuade the enemy you hate the most to become the friends we so desperately need. And enough brains to understand that this is a better use her(?) time and effort to do so than to snipe with your ass.

And I respect that.

Half of this thread is like, we're starving, and we have nothing to put on the Thanksgiving table, but we hate you for hunting down half a dozen game cocks and giving them to us on a silver platter because it's Thanksgiving and you should have found some turkeys. Go look some other gift horse in the mouth. I'm not putting up with it on my watch.

AGRP
07-26-2011, 08:56 AM
"Leftists" perspectives are seen through a pipe constructed by statist schools and the media and youre a hillbilly if you think outside of the lines. That is their problem.

They see problems that only the state can solve and are very much the equivalent of neocons or your typical statist Republican.

For example, I was thinking the other day that many of them dont agree with private property rights when it comes to hiring/renting to people. A key example being, its wrong for landlords to not rent to gay people so we need laws. Well, Ill tell you something. I have a hard time believing a leftist or homosexual will willingly rent to someone who is from the Westboro Church or someone who open carries on a daily basis.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 09:06 AM
For example, I was thinking the other day that many of them dont agree with private property rights when it comes to hiring/renting to people. A key example being, its wrong for landlords to not rent to gay people so we need laws. Well, Ill tell you something. I have a hard time believing a leftist or homosexual will willingly rent to someone who is from the Westboro Church or someone who open carries on a daily basis.

Well, freaking fine. If the subject comes up, maybe this will be useful to help smooth over residuals of the old, false 'left-right' paradigm. But if the subject doesn't come up while you're trying to convince a Democrat to help us nominate an honest man, please, please, please don't bring it up! For God's sake, leave it the hell alone.

If we're successful, New Jersey can force landlords to do this and not force them to do that, and New Mexico can force landlords to do that and not to do this, and we can get along just fine. But we have to be successful before we can do this thing and ease those tensions. So, in the meantime, let it lie fallow and don't bring it up.

Sniping over this artificial false left-right paradigm is what Washington has been using to shove tyranny down our throats for decades, and I'll tell you something right now. If we can't outgrow it, we can't help the nation outgrow it. You might as well just pull out your Glock and put a hole in your foot right now.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 09:18 AM
'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers

Here I've been hearing you people whining for decades about how Teh Left has been trying to stuff you in their mold, and the first thing you do when a defector from that group shows up is try to stuff this person in your mold. Well, I just don't see how that makes you better than the people you rail against. I really don't.

Is this about the fact that Ron Paul chose a long time ago to associate himself (for strictly pragmatic reasons only, as you well know) with the Republican Party and we have a disaffected Democrat among us? Are we trying to pull rank and using seniority as an excuse? Well, guess what? When I voted for the Libertarian Paul for president in 1988 I was a Libertarian, and now I'm using seniority to pull rank on you.

Do not harass our allies. This is an order. We need all the friends we can get. Period.

Rise above it or lose this fight for us. There is no third way. Those who can see beyond their televisions are our potential allies. Everyone else is not. No matter what their registration has been. It really, really, really is that simple at this point. Really.

Why are you here fighting for liberty? Is it because people are different? Is variety bad? Do some of these different people love to do jobs that society needs done, but which you would hate to do? Do they have a God-given right to be different from you? Why are you here fighting for liberty again? Think about it...

Oh, and fyi Athena, this is your thread, as you are the OP. So, you have the right to click the little triangle at the bottom of any post, and when the message box pops up you have the right to type into it something to the effect of, 'Mods, please expunge this childish attempt at a hijack from my thread.' Just so you'll know. Because as far as I'm concerned, more than twenty-five percent of this thread is about how not to win support from the pissed-off left, but rather send them back into the arms of the corporatists they're rightfully pissed off at by making them more pissed at us . Counterproductive and trollish behavior much?

Seraphim
07-26-2011, 09:28 AM
I like you so far but: STRAW MAN.

No ponzi scheme social system does not mean they starve...false dude. False.


It's a redistribution of money from the young to the old. Socialism. Diabolical, I know. lol. With its self-funded tax that's a contact between generations ans all, it's pure evil. Much better to let the elderly starve, like in the good old days before it was clear that the rich were worthy and the elderly poor were losers.

Heh.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 09:34 AM
I like you so far but: STRAW MAN.

No ponzi scheme social system does not mean they starve...false dude. False.

You actually have a point. Arguably any insurance system is Ponzi-esque in some respects. But, no, the elderly didn't universally starve before SSI, and arguably since the inflation figures don't include food and SSI is tied to them (indirectly), we may well have more seniors on cat food now than ever.

Yes, there must be a better way. And, no, I don't see the fedgov being that better way. If for no other reason (and I have several other reasons, thank you) than to keep the insurance trust fund out of the reach of the next Dubya.

amonasro
07-26-2011, 10:05 AM
Welcome Athena. We're generally a good bunch but sometimes get our Liberty Panties in a bunch.

I was talking with my mother-in-law about SS very recently. She's a liberal who is LOVES Obama. Anyway we were discussing SS and she fed me the same line about how it's fully funded for three decades.

Thing is, there's no special vault in the Social Security system holding all the money you put in over the years. She looked at me like I had three heads. "Sure it's there," she said. Sure there's an account with some numbers in it, but the actual money is immediately spent as it's taken in. In reality, there are IOUs. SS takes in new money, gives it to an older generation and calls itself solvent when in reality it's a Ponzi scheme. There was a great article posted a few months back about this--maybe someone can find it.

But yeah. My money, forcibly removed from my paycheck, is long gone and in its place are IOUs from a government that's in a mind-boggling amount of debt. It reminds me if the scene in Dumb & Dumber when they find the suitcase with millions in cash. After a few months spending like reckless sailors, the bad guys finally reclaim the suitcase and open it, horrified to find a pile of IOUs. "That's as good as money, sir," says Lloyd. "Those are I.O.U.'s. Go ahead and add it up, every cent's accounted for. Look, see this? That's a car. 275 thou. Might wanna hang onto that one."

Brett85
07-26-2011, 10:13 AM
1) Obama is as bad or worse than Bush, from a Leftie POV (wars, empire building, executive executions without trial, killing the social safety net, etc.)

Killing the social safety net? :confused:

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Killing the social safety net? :confused:

Centralizing it hasn't done it any favors. You know that. And neither has the Fed.

They're waking up, my friend. Thank God.

Brett85
07-26-2011, 10:17 AM
And see, that's the difference between us. Do you know what happened to old folks before Social Security? Ever read about the "poor house" or the "poor farm "? Know how they were funded?

Things would be different with the technological advancements that we have now. Much of the improvements that we've made in society have been through technological advancements, not through the growth of government. I think that private charities and churches would be much better equipped to take care of the poor in today's sociey than they were in the 1920's.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 10:19 AM
Things would be different with the technological advancements that we have now. Much of the improvements that we've made in society have been through technological advancements, not through the growth of government. I think that private charities and churches would be much better equipped to take care of the poor in today's sociey than they were in the 1920's.

Maybe if we work hard enough at this, we'll give them that chance to excel.

Actually, I take that back. They're already using this to excel. I know this because I'm working on a certain project with both a certain county and charitable organizations in that county, and the charitable organizations are actually helping while the county itself is guarding its turf and trying to manipulate me into cowtowing to them.

If we could only get some of these goofy assed laws out of the way the excellence of these charities would show more. Take Joplin, for example. The Red Cross was doing amazing things there. Until FEMA showed up, took over, and tied their hands.

Seraphim
07-26-2011, 10:20 AM
this.


Things would be different with the technological advancements that we have now. Much of the improvements that we've made in society have been through technological advancements, not through the growth of government. I think that private charities and churches would be much better equipped to take care of the poor in today's sociey than they were in the 1920's.

Brett85
07-26-2011, 10:22 AM
Centralizing it hasn't done it any favors. You know that. And neither has the Fed.

They're waking up, my friend. Thank God.

I'm not for sure what you mean. I just know that Obama has actually added a trillion dollar entitlement to the budget that will further bankrupt our country. That's not exactly "killing the social safety net."

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 10:29 AM
I'm not for sure what you mean. I just know that Obama has actually added a trillion dollar entitlement to the budget that will further bankrupt our country. That's not exactly "killing the social safety net."

But if it hasn't done a single thing to help the 'social safety net', but instead has come with more weird regulations to hinder it, then it is killing it. Have you never noticed that the more money Washington throws at a problem, the less likely they are to aid and abet the relief and the more likely they are to suffocate it? Damn it all, man. Look at the Department of Education!

When you get ahold of a liberal, try a little less 'this is wrong on principle' and a little more 'this is supposed to be helping but in practical reality it's doing serious harm', and see if you don't get a different reaction. Our principles aren't just principled. They're useful on a practical level. Really.

If the faucet goes out in your house, you can buy a good, solid metal faucet which is plain or you can pay a little more and get a plastic piece of garbage which is plated with genuine gold. Which will last longer? Don't confuse spending more with getting more. It has been a long, long time since you could honestly say 'you get what you pay for'.

Krugerrand
07-26-2011, 10:30 AM
Welcome Athena. We're generally a good bunch but sometimes get our Liberty Panties in a bunch.

I was talking with my mother-in-law about SS very recently. She's a liberal who is LOVES Obama. Anyway we were discussing SS and she fed me the same line about how it's fully funded for three decades.

Thing is, there's no special vault in the Social Security system holding all the money you put in over the years. She looked at me like I had three heads. "Sure it's there," she said. Sure there's an account with some numbers in it, but the actual money is immediately spent as it's taken in. In reality, there are IOUs. SS takes in new money, gives it to an older generation and calls itself solvent when in reality it's a Ponzi scheme. There was a great article posted a few months back about this--maybe someone can find it.

But yeah. My money, forcibly removed from my paycheck, is long gone and in its place are IOUs from a government that's in a mind-boggling amount of debt. It reminds me if the scene in Dumb & Dumber when they find the suitcase with millions in cash. After a few months spending like reckless sailors, the bad guys finally reclaim the suitcase and open it, horrified to find a pile of IOUs. "That's as good as money, sir," says Lloyd. "Those are I.O.U.'s. Go ahead and add it up, every cent's accounted for. Look, see this? That's a car. 275 thou. Might wanna hang onto that one."

The comments on this one share you SS comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSXbgfKFWg

Brett85
07-26-2011, 10:33 AM
But if it hasn't done a single thing to help the 'social safety net', but instead has come with more weird regulations to hinder it, then it is killing it. Have you never noticed that the more money Washington throws at a problem, the less likely they are to aid and abet the relief and the more likely they are to suffocate it? Damn it all, man. Look at the Department of Education!

When you get ahold of a liberal, try a little less 'this is wrong on principle' and a little more 'this is supposed to be helping but in practical reality it's doing serious harm', and see if you don't get a different reaction. Our principles aren't just principled. They're useful on a practical level. Really.

If the faucet goes out in your house, you can buy a good, solid metal faucet which is plain or you can pay a little more and get a plastic piece of garbage which is plated with genuine gold. Which will last longer? Don't confuse spending more with getting more. It has been a long, long time since you could honestly say 'you get what you pay for'.

That's a good point.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 10:40 AM
I could have sworn Dubya used this as a photo op and there was video broadcast. Sure can't find that video now. Seems to be down the Memory Hole:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002232356_socsec06.html


That's a good point.

Thank you, sir. Fortunately there are those on 'The Left' who are smart enough and principled enough to understand that the 'bottom line' that counts is not spending, but results. And those are the ones we're winning over to the cause--wholesale.

Sam I am
07-26-2011, 10:46 AM
The general leftist view of Obama is that his balls are smaller than Hillary Clinton's. He wants to be on good terms with everybody, so he appeases this interest group and that.

acptulsa
07-26-2011, 10:55 AM
The general leftist view of Obama is that his balls are smaller than Hillary Clinton's. He wants to be on good terms with everybody, so he appeases this interest group and that.

Well then, I guess it's time to ask them if they should be depending on Obama's balls or their own governor's. And which one of the two is more sympathetic to special interests. Special interests like Tom Vilsack's Monsanto.

Sam I am
07-26-2011, 10:58 AM
Fully funded?!?!? For 3 decades?!?! HAHA, yeah ok. Whatever, I'm done here. Have fun in fantasy land where the government is 54 trillion dollars in debt yet has enough money to fund SS for the next 3 decades. It is a ponzi scheme that can only be funded by taking in money from current workers.

Theoretically, Social Security is supposed to be separate from the rest of the budget, and if it stayed that way like it should have, It would be funded for the next 3 decades

muzzled dogg
07-26-2011, 11:03 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/ron-paul-a-lesser-evil/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/16107.html

AGRP
07-26-2011, 11:32 AM
Well, freaking fine. If the subject comes up, maybe this will be useful to help smooth over residuals of the old, false 'left-right' paradigm.

Sniping over this artificial false left-right paradigm is what Washington has been using to shove tyranny down our throats for decades, and I'll tell you something right now. If we can't outgrow it, we can't help the nation outgrow it. You might as well just pull out your Glock and put a hole in your foot right now.

Context.

This thread is entitled "How to win support from the pissed off left"

If you take a step back, my post concludes that the only way to solve such issues is to allow everyone their right to do what they want with their own property. It is this right that "the left" cannot comprehend nor accept. This is why they are technically not "leftests", but statists. Your typical "leftist" should love Ron Paul for the freedoms that they constantly protest for, yet they dont want him in office because deep down inside they would rather have a statist; a God to take care of them from cradle to grave.

Nate
07-26-2011, 11:35 AM
Theoretically, Social Security is supposed to be separate from the rest of the budget, and if it stayed that way like it should have, It would be funded for the next 3 decades

Yes you're right theoretically but in reality they raided it to bomb a bunch of brown people so privileged corporations could steal their natural resources.

Athena
07-26-2011, 11:52 PM
Welcome, Athena. Glad to know we're getting through.

You see, we've been at this a minute. Like, I posted a thread on the topic so many years ago you can't even find it now. It's archived.

Now that you've made the leap of faith and come to the lions' den, let me help you get up to speed, here. For many, many decades social programs in this country, where not done exclusively by charity, were generally handled on the county level, and occasionally the state level. This worked better because this is where the 'boots on the ground' are, this is where the local needs are known, and all the federal government has EVER done is take our money and redistributte it to counties in accordance to their ability to fill out federal paperwork and jump through federal hoops. It isn't helpful. It's just a federal power grab. That's all.

So, isn't the wealth redistribution good for poor states? Mostly the wealth redistribution is to Washington. They do take one hell of a cut. But, no; when the poor states are forced to use the extra money hiring grant proposal writers and doing things that are of no particular benefit ot their local needy, they don't gain at all.

Think of the Western European model that so many liberals hold so high. Name me a western European country that is as big a Texas. Can't do it, can you? So, state control of this stuff IS the Western European model. Federal control of this stuff is the Soviet model. Which worked out better?

Now consider this. You are a corporation, Monsanto say, and you want control of some aspect of America (be it agriculure or the way we give benefits to the needy, or anything else). Is it easier for you to buy influence in fifty state legislatures and a number of territorial governments, or is it easier for you to go to an overly and unConstitutionally strong Washington, D.C. for one-stop shopping? This is why our principles have practical benefit for those who are sick of the rampant corporatism. That's why our preference for state regulation over Washington regulation is the anti-corporatist stance, much more than either the position of the neocons or the position of the Democrats.

Hope this is helpful to your fine efforts on behalf of our 'cult of integrity' and our genuinely honest man. If there's anything more I can do to help you, here's where you'll find me!

As for the rest of you, do you want to get this man the nomination? Because your neocon friends are slow to wake the hell up, as I've seen you lament here many, many times, and you know it's none of your business if the people of, say, New Jersey conduct as much 'socialist' experimentation as they wish--and there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it either. So, please, will you freaking stop trying to chase our allies away with your piss-poor 'ha ha I'm done with you' pseudo-debate bull already?

Thank you ever so much for saving your salvoes for the flipping enemy instead of our allies. :rolleyes:

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me. Thank you.

Athena
07-27-2011, 12:27 AM
Context.

This thread is entitled "How to win support from the pissed off left"

If you take a step back, my post concludes that the only way to solve such issues is to allow everyone their right to do what they want with their own property. It is this right that "the left" cannot comprehend nor accept. This is why they are technically not "leftests", but statists. Your typical "leftist" should love Ron Paul for the freedoms that they constantly protest for, yet they dont want him in office because deep down inside they would rather have a statist; a God to take care of them from cradle to grave.

That is such complete bullshit. "We lefties" don't really give a shit if social security, etc, is relegated to the states or whatever. We only want it taken care of in a humane way.

Athena
07-27-2011, 12:28 AM
Yes you're right theoretically but in reality they raided it to bomb a bunch of brown people so privileged corporations could steal their natural resources.

Exactly.

Paul Or Nothing II
07-27-2011, 06:22 AM
Ron Paul hold some ideas that we on the left consider to be kooky, but if he were president, he wouldn't be able to move us back to the gold standard, etc.

I think the best argument for any leftist to vote for Ron Paul will be that all the other stuff he's talking about needs approval of the Congress, Senate, etc but ONE thing that president Paul can & will do is bring back our military presence around the world & save almost a trillion dollars from being wasted every years & thereby help save the "safety nets" WITHOUT putting the contry into further debt & destroying the dollar.


It's a redistribution of money from the young to the old. Socialism. Diabolical, I know. lol. With its self-funded tax that's a contact between generations ans all, it's pure evil. Much better to let the elderly starve, like in the good old days before it was clear that the rich were worthy and the elderly poor were losers.

Heh.

Even if we put aside the property-rights & say that older people do have a right to ENSLAVE the younger generation for their expenses, the thing is that the government ie politicians & bureaucrats are NOT angels, they're NOT Robinhoods so whatever money they do STEAL, a lot of it goes down their own throats & on creating more monstrous bureaucracies to "regulate" everything &/or is used to seubsize & bail out corporations that fund their campaigns & VERY VERY LITTLE of it actually goes towards helping the people it's supposed to help.

And the thing is that if all of this money being taken out of the private sector means that all the PRODUCTIVE jobs (jobs that actually produce or help in producing CONSUMER goods/services which enhance people's living standards) that it'd've created are NOT created, all the goods/services it'd've produced & thereby lowered their prices are NOT produced & therefore, every next generation suffers TWICE, first when they're ROBBED by government & secondly, because of all the jobs & goods/services that are NOT created because of usurpation of that money. And remember, if people are producing more & creating more REAL WEALTH (ie goods/services) then they'll be more inclined to give it to charity than when jobs & goods/services aren't being maximized due destruction of capital through government-robbery & thereby prices are higher.

Again, governments & politicians have always been corrupt (look at any democratic government around, they were/are all corrupt to a very large degree) because governments are about power & force so it automatically attracts people who'd like to use power & force on other people to benefit THEMSELVES for the most part & that's what makes the whole "safety net" things is so inefficient & destructive & in the long-run, it's going to put the country on the path to destruction.


Theoretically, Social Security is supposed to be separate from the rest of the budget, and if it stayed that way like it should have, It would be funded for the next 3 decades

Again, all these "ifs & buts" are pointless because politicians never were & never will be angels, vast majority of them are there because they want to use force against others to benefit themselves as much as they can so it was inevitable that they'll be using that money to promise stuff to gain votes.


That is such complete bullshit. "We lefties" don't really give a shit if social security, etc, is relegated to the states or whatever. We only want it taken care of in a humane way.

Nice to know that at least you support the States Rights :)

Krugerrand
07-27-2011, 06:26 AM
This board likes to complain about RP's suits. Perhaps at the next debate he could show up in an orange Guantanamo Bay prisoner jumpsuit. (Those protesters don't seem to be around much since '08) It should would turn some heads and change the direction of the debate!

acptulsa
07-27-2011, 07:36 AM
Athena, I'd admire having your input in this useful thread, please:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302831-Need-best-responses-to-these-antipated-questions-from-liberal-statist-leaning-independents

And if there are unanticipated questions your friends have asked you about Ron Paul and libertarianism, do please bring those up to. If you have answers that have worked, do share. If not, stick the question up anyway and let us have a go at ti. I'd appreciate it.

FunkBuddha
07-27-2011, 09:59 AM
Thank you for joining and welcome to our forum Athena. I appreciate and value your perspective and input. If I must choose between biting my tongue or innocent people being exploited and murdered, you will see me spitting blood before you will see me bickering about my ideology.

acptulsa
07-27-2011, 10:28 AM
Thank you for joining and welcome to our forum Athena. I appreciate and value your perspective and input. If I must choose between biting my tongue or innocent people being exploited and murdered, you will see me spitting blood before you will see me bickering about my ideology.

+rep.

I never thought of states' rights as a way to achieve peace in our time before. But truly, in this bizarre political climate, you have found this link and it is real. States' rights for peace. Peace between the peacemakers--through states' rights--so we can join forces to bring peace to the world.

Brilliant.