With the Left in charge where do we stand?

[CharlieChan]

"Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction.
No universal selfishness can bring social good to all."
—Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois African American scholar, activist and Communist

CAPITALISM
What do you call a system that promotes selfishness, exploitation, racism and police brutality, sexism, and homophobia? A system that wages unjust wars for profit, that robs young people of jobs and education, devastates our communities with drugs and poverty and destroys our environment?

What do you call a system that puts people out on the streets, lets children go hungry and leaves the sick and elderly without care? A system that allows a small minority to become obscenely wealthy and powerful, while the majority of people live in poverty and powerlessness?

Do you call it inhumane? Unjust? Crazy? You can call it that, or you can just call it capitalism.

click here for the rest of the story
http://gettinafterlefty.multiply.com/journal/item/30/With_the_Left_in_Power_Where_do_we_Stand

""Gettin After Lefty""
Long before a foreign army comes marching down our streets,long before terrorist are knocking at each of our doors. The Socialist left with it's minons in the press will destroy our nation--and uproot our Republic--we will wake up one day with a new way to look at things forced on us while we slept-----SOCIALISM

[DesertFox]

Q: What do you call a system that works? a system that makes people rich and gives everyone a chance at it? a system that feeds so many that only a tiny few even need work in agriculture? a system that rewards hard, smart, persevering effort and promotes a sense of responsibility? a system based on the principle of providing others what they want? a system where force is not the predicate, but cooperation is?

A: Capitalism.

[Elgalad]

Capitalism and Communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The Communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home says, "No man should have so much!" The Capitalist, seeing the same thing says, "All men should have as much." -- Phelps Adams


-Elgalad

[DoctorDoom]

With the Left in charge where do we stand?We don't. We fall, and there will be no one to pick us up.

Eccl 4:10b ...(W)oe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

[MrSanity]

It's impossible for any economic system to be just and fair. Capitalism is the closest of any system because it allows free decisions to be made by free people without punishment. Socialism does not improve the permanent standard of living for the poor. The poor should also be the most motivated to rise above their standards of living, and we've seen many, many success stories that have lived to inspire millions of Americans to take risks and invest wisely.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

What do you call a system that promotes selfishness, exploitation, racism and police brutality, sexism, and homophobia? A system that wages unjust wars for profit, that robs young people of jobs and education, devastates our communities with drugs and poverty and destroys our environment?

What do you call a system that puts people out on the streets, lets children go hungry and leaves the sick and elderly without care? A system that allows a small minority to become obscenely wealthy and powerful, while the majority of people live in poverty and powerlessness?

Yep. Describes communism perfectly.

[MrSanity]

Yep. Describes communism perfectly.Especially the last part: "A system that allows a small minority to become obscenely wealthy and powerful, while the majority of people live in poverty and powerlessness?"

All I can think of is the elitists in the former USSR who took the bulk out of EVERYONE, rich, middle, and poor, and wasted it for personal recreation and special interests.

[DesertFox]

Yep. The more you read about the USSR, the more struck you are by just how upside-down that system was compared with what it said about itself.

[BuckeyeMike]

Where do we stand? Bent over at the waist.....buttocks bared.....easier access that way!

[CharlieChan]

It's impossible for any economic system to be just and fair. Capitalism is the closest of any system because it allows free decisions to be made by free people without punishment. Socialism does not improve the permanent standard of living for the poor. The poor should also be the most motivated to rise above their standards of living, and we've seen many, many success stories that have lived to inspire millions of Americans to take risks and invest wisely.

here is a quote from me-on Socialism and what will happen if Hillary or Barack H Obama become president.

"HILLARY OR OBAMA SOCIALISM is an agenda that will put us all at the same level of misery" or as they would and are calling it leveling the playing field.

success stories are a threat to Socialist Democrats--

[DoctorDoom]

Communism trumpets equality, but ...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ."
-- George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Rhino]

Yep. Describes communism perfectly.You beat me to it, Blue.

[federalisthoosier]

The end of the world as we know it and I feel sick.

[Maggie_T]

With the Left in charge where do we stand?

Knee-deep in doggy-doo, I would say.

[Timberwolf]

In deep $#!+...

[Timberwolf]

LOL, Maggie...GMTA 'n' all. :thumb:

btw - I'm with ya on your take of McCain...this may be the first year since I was old enough to vote that I don't cast a vote for President.

I drew my "line in the sand" quite awhile ago and it's a line I'm not crossing. If, by some act of devine intervention, the Huckster pulls the nomination outta his nether regions, I'll consider voting for him...but, I see absolutely NO difference between McCain and the democrats and therefore, I'll NOT vote for him.

The "powers that be" knew this a loooooong time ago. Apparently, they're gonna test our conservative mettle by giving us, not a moderate but, a full-blown liberal for whom to vote. I think they wanna see if we conservatives will stick to our guns, tell them to piss off, and LET the demunist be elected.

As far as I'm concerned, the RNC just shot itself in the head. Scroom.

[DoctorDoom]

Forget not that McCain is in the numero uno spot because of voters in primaries and caucuses. The RNC didn't select him.

[ThomasMore]

Forget not that McCain is in the numero uno spot because of voters in primaries and caucuses. The RNC didn't select him.

This is an important point. After I got over my anger at the result, I had to consider how it occurred. We started out with a large field of candidates, who dwindled through lack of voter support.

Consider Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. Each of them ran, but failed to get any voter traction.

Fred Thompson ran and received a lot of excitement and support from everyone but himself.

Nobody trusted Mitt Romney until he was out of the race.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, two men who are certainly not the picks of the RNC, are still in the race.

McCain is the only "establishment" candidate. However, it is the voters who have put him into the lead, not some back room deal.

---

On the Democrat side, the story isn't all that different. Consider that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was a candidate in that party, but he couldn't get any traction.

We Americans have only ourselves to blame for our candidates.

[Timberwolf]

Forget not that McCain is in the numero uno spot because of voters in primaries and caucuses. The RNC didn't select him.
Au contraire, mon frere...

He has been selected because the first primaries/caucii are held in the most liberal states. The RNC has control over which state(s) hold their primaries when. So, while it is true the voters selected him, it was not due to the voice(s) of the most conservative states in the country. Were the conservative states to "go first", Thompson, Romney and the Huckster - in no particular order - would be holding the top 3 spots (heck, Tancredo and Hunter might still be in the race) and McCain, Guiliani and Paul would be cheering from the sidelines, IMHO.

My :2cents:

[ThomasMore]

Au contraire, mon frere...

He has been selected because the first primaries/caucii are held in the most liberal states. The RNC has control over which state(s) hold their primaries when. So, while it is true the voters selected him, it was not due to the voice(s) of the most conservative states in the country. Were the conservative states to "go first", Thompson, Romney and the Huckster - in no particular order - would be holding the top 3 spots (heck, Tancredo and Hunter might still be in the race) and McCain, Guiliani and Paul would be cheering from the sidelines, IMHO.

My :2cents:

Wolf, that is a great point.

The RP didn't change its primary/caucus schedule from past elections, so I don't think there was any back room manipulation.

But that brings up a GREAT question. SHOULD we keep the primary/caucus schedule the same? Or should we look at changing it?

On one hand, changing it might enable more conservative states to get an earlier bite.

On the other hand, once started, it would become a new venue for Gerrymandering.

[DoctorDoom]

He has been selected because the first primaries/caucii are held in the most liberal states. The RNC has control over which state(s) hold their primaries when. So, while it is true the voters selected him, it was not due to the voice(s) of the most conservative states in the country. Were the conservative states to "go first", Thompson, Romney and the Huckster - in no particular order - would be holding the top 3 spots (heck, Tancredo and Hunter might still be in the race) and McCain, Guiliani and Paul would be cheering from the sidelines, IMHO.One assumes that the candidates know that going in. However, when "Super Tuesday" comes and goes and the conservatives still in the running are left on the sidelines, is that the RNC's fault?

I submit that regardless of which states vote first, when the people who attend the caucuses or pull the levers choose GOP "moderates" or liberals, they bear the responsibility for a RAT Lite as the GOP's candidate.

Who leads after the early states have voted doesn't mean squat, q.v., Howard Dean. The only thing that counts is who leads after the whole country has made its choice. If the Republican voters really wanted a conservative, Fred would have trounced the rest.

IMO, the people as a whole like the status quo, and they don't favor boat-rockers and Earth-shakers. They want their "services" and their handouts and their entitlements, and screw the conservatives who call for smaller government and more personal responsibility.

The following familiar quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler, but it is not one iota less true no matter who said it.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

That's the reality of the US in 2008.

[Suzie]

McCain lost in several of the early states. He only picked up steam after SC.

[Maggie_T]

LOL, Maggie...GMTA 'n' all. :thumb:

btw - I'm with ya on your take of McCain...this may be the first year since I was old enough to vote that I don't cast a vote for President.

I drew my "line in the sand" quite awhile ago and it's a line I'm not crossing. If, by some act of devine intervention, the Huckster pulls the nomination outta his nether regions, I'll consider voting for him...but, I see absolutely NO difference between McCain and the democrats and therefore, I'll NOT vote for him.

The "powers that be" knew this a loooooong time ago. Apparently, they're gonna test our conservative mettle by giving us, not a moderate but, a full-blown liberal for whom to vote. I think they wanna see if we conservatives will stick to our guns, tell them to piss off, and LET the demunist be elected.

As far as I'm concerned, the RNC just shot itself in the head. Scroom.


Oh, thank you, Wolfie. I agree 100%. McCain is NOT a conservative in my book. So I can't say I feel guilty for not voting for him.

The Country Club Republican Aristrocrats have done it again. They chose a candidate that the grassroots abhor, but that (they think) will make the drive-by media like them (the 'pub aristocrats, that is) better. They know best, you see (the 'pubs aristocrats, again). Well, screw them, I say. They deserve no better. They shot themselves in the head, indeed.

And I was not the one holding the gun.

[Maggie_T]

Au contraire, mon frere...

He has been selected because the first primaries/caucii are held in the most liberal states. The RNC has control over which state(s) hold their primaries when. So, while it is true the voters selected him, it was not due to the voice(s) of the most conservative states in the country. Were the conservative states to "go first", Thompson, Romney and the Huckster - in no particular order - would be holding the top 3 spots (heck, Tancredo and Hunter might still be in the race) and McCain, Guiliani and Paul would be cheering from the sidelines, IMHO.

My :2cents:


Quite.

[ThomasMore]

There were seven ways conservative voters could have voted in the early primaries/caucuses (FDT, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo.)

None was the reincarnation of Reagan that all could unite behind. Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo barely got any notice.

Many conservatives figured that Thompson would be the rock star. Unlike Romney or Huckabee, his legislative record was consistently conservative. And he had Hollywood experience, which had served Reagan so well. But Thompson ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history.*

Some evangelicals like Huckabee (he appealed to me, initially). While his walk doesn't match his talk, many conservative and evangelical voters never figured that out.

Some liked Romney. And Romney ran very well. But many other conservatives never fully trusted him, because of past flip-flops or because of his membership in the LDS.

Some like Paul's consistent votes against expansive government. Others dislike his anti-war stance.

So even with three out, the conservative vote was still split four ways.

The conservatives never formed a coherent voting bloc because they had not too few, but too many candidates vying for their votes.

McCain got his support from moderates and establishment Republicans, while conservatives split their votes up.

*The wife of Romney's Colorado campaign manager told me Thompson wasn't really interested in running, but Jeri had pushed the candidacy with him. Initially I considered that absurd. However, Thompson's unprepared and disinterested demeanor is causing me to reconsider that idea.

[Timberwolf]

There were seven ways conservative voters could have voted in the early primaries/caucuses (FDT, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo.)Yup.
None was the reincarnation of Reagan that all could unite behind. Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo barely got any notice.WHY did they "barely get any notice"? Because the CCRA (country club Republican Aristocracy) didn't WANT them to and didn't spend any resources "introducing" them to America.

Many conservatives figured that Thompson would be the rock star. Unlike Romney or Huckabee, his legislative record was consistently conservative. And he had Hollywood experience, which had served Reagan so well. But Thompson ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history.*Kinda hard to get up a "head of steam" when the media refuses to cover your campaign because you won't run it the way THEY want you to. Even after he cleaned EVERYONE'S clock in the ?2nd? debate, no one paid any mind to him.

Some evangelicals like Huckabee (he appealed to me, initially). While his walk doesn't match his talk, many conservative and evangelical voters never figured that out.Yeah, he's a minister!! He's gotta be OK! Sadly, you hit that nail right square.

Some liked Romney. And Romney ran very well. But many other conservatives never fully trusted him, because of past flip-flops or because of his membership in the LDS.One of the most shameful components of the race was the Huckster making Romney's religion an issue.

Some like Paul's consistent votes against expansive government. Others dislike his anti-war stance.That's me. Had he moderated his "the troops come home NOW" stance, he'd have my support.

So even with three out, the conservative vote was still split four ways.

The conservatives never formed a coherent voting bloc because they had not too few, but too many candidates vying for their votes.We had a pro-war liberal (Guiliani), a pro-life liberal (Huckabee), a federalist (Thompson), an anti-war conservative (Paul), and 3 solid conservatives (Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo)...who were the first one's out of the REPUBLICAN race? The Federalist and the 3 solid conservatives...does anyone besides ME see a problem with the home team? Namely, the CCRA.

McCain got his support from moderates and establishment Republicans, while conservatives split their votes up.McCain got his support from the DriveBy Media and got his funding from George Soros. Notice how, now that he's all but "wrapped up" the republican nomination, we are NOW being informed as to his "conservative shortcomings" by the very same DBM who was fawning all over him just a few short weeks ago? Naw, we're not being set-up...nah, what would ever give anyone that idea?

*The wife of Romney's Colorado campaign manager told me Thompson wasn't really interested in running, but Jeri had pushed the candidacy with him. Initially I considered that absurd. However, Thompson's unprepared and disinterested demeanor is causing me to reconsider that idea.Don't waste your time...I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

[ThomasMore]

Yup.

McCain got his support from the DriveBy Media and got his funding from George Soros. Notice how, now that he's all but "wrapped up" the republican nomination, we are NOW being informed as to his "conservative shortcomings" by the very same DBM who was fawning all over him just a few short weeks ago? Naw, we're not being set-up...nah, what would ever give anyone that idea?

I just recently heard about the Soros money behind McPain. It was news, but it wasn't surprising.

Don't waste your time...I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

I agree it is rumor mill stuff. But I don't have a better answer for Fred's abysmal performance; AFAIC it is sheer speculation.

The DBM did everything it could against Reagan, too. He beat them at their own game. In order to win, conservatives have to be three times as smart and ten times as clean as the competition. The snakes in the grass are lying in wait. If conservatives aren't up to the battle in the campaign stage, they will get nailed even harder later.

Funny thing is that I don't think McCain knows just how hard the press will turn on him, to favor the Democrat. If Huckabee somehow gets nominated, within a month he won't have a clue what hit him.

If Fred wasn't up to the primary campaign, how would he have done when the full weight of the press and the Clinton attack machine turned on him, for the general election? And if he made it into office, how would he have dealt with Thompson Derangement Syndrome?

Don't get me wrong. Thompson was the best of the bunch, ideologically. But I thought his campaign was pitiful.

[Timberwolf]

Fair enough, Thomas...good assessment, btw.