Obama says he's now committed to helping the middle class ...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm for individual liberty. I don't care what you collectivists call yourselves... don't tread on me.

So how do you square the ideal of individual liberty with a society ruled by the rich few? How do you achieve individual liberty? Under what system? Are you advocating for anarchy?

Great question!

Our constitution was constructed to protect the individual's rights. What today can be rationalized to protect the masses or for a greater good is not constitutional when applied to an individual. Take the metadata for instance... would it be legal to apply a warrantless search and collection of data to one person? No... but throw in a muddled rational to protect all and the individual is trampled. Our rights and liberties are strongest when applied to an individual level... not at a collectivist level.

What comic book are you relying upon for your history?  Our Constitution was created by the rich, for the rich and of the rich.  Then as time went by it was modified to suit the needs of the day.  At first, only a white male who owned property could vote.  

You don't like the current rash of NSA and other digital surveillance of us all, protected by the Patriot Act and other security crapola?  We agree on something.  But it's clear you think it's perfectly okay and proper for 1% of the American population to control 50% of the total cash, and then invest some of the money to buy elections.

Screw Amerika Inc.!  Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.  

What makes you think that the rich have not always been in charge since the dawn of mankind?

Your perception of history and the wealthy/powerful not being in control is amusing at best in it's childish naivety.

The most we can hope for is an attempt at balancing it so that the poor and middle class are not completely stomped on. However this new generation of leaders have shown that the supposed morals and ethics that are almost mandatorily taught in colleges today have little to no meaning to them when it comes to supporting some agenda that is supposedly progressive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What makes you think that the rich have not always been in charge since the dawn of mankind?

Your perception of history and the wealthy/powerful not being in control is amusing at best in it's childish naivety.

The most we can hope for is an attempt at balancing it so that the poor and middle class are not completely stomped on. However this new generation of leaders have shown that the supposed morals and ethics that are almost mandatorily taught in colleges today have little to no meaning to them when it comes to supporting some agenda that is supposedly progressive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

Of course the rich have always, throughout history wielded the power, this is not a news flash.

Obviously it is to the person I was talking too.

othershoe1030 wrote:Which new generation of leaders are you referring to? What ethics are you referring to? and how does this connect to the rich? and how does it relate to a progressive agenda?

Why should I respond to any of your questions when you and others avoid responding to mine? After all if you disagree with me or any other moderate or conservative on the forum you and your little group of friends are just going to tell us how stupid we are, how we don't understand, how we have no reading comprehension, etc...

So instead you can take that last sentence and apply it to yourself.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnNAGLAc_w

Wordslinger wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm for individual liberty. I don't care what you collectivists call yourselves... don't tread on me.

So how do you square the ideal of individual liberty with a society ruled by the rich few? How do you achieve individual liberty? Under what system? Are you advocating for anarchy?

Great question!

Our constitution was constructed to protect the individual's rights. What today can be rationalized to protect the masses or for a greater good is not constitutional when applied to an individual. Take the metadata for instance... would it be legal to apply a warrantless search and collection of data to one person? No... but throw in a muddled rational to protect all and the individual is trampled. Our rights and liberties are strongest when applied to an individual level... not at a collectivist level.

What comic book are you relying upon for your history?  Our Constitution was created by the rich, for the rich and of the rich.  Then as time went by it was modified to suit the needs of the day.  At first, only a white male who owned property could vote.  

You don't like the current rash of NSA and other digital surveillance of us all, protected by the Patriot Act and other security crapola?  We agree on something.  But it's clear you think it's perfectly okay and proper for 1% of the American population to control 50% of the total cash, and then invest some of the money to buy elections.

Screw Amerika Inc.!  Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.  

What makes you think that the rich have not always been in charge since the dawn of mankind?

Your perception of history and the wealthy/powerful not being in control is amusing at best in it's childish naivety.

The most we can hope for is an attempt at balancing it so that the poor and middle class are not completely stomped on. However this new generation of leaders have shown that the supposed morals and ethics that are almost mandatorily taught in colleges today have little to no meaning to them when it comes to supporting some agenda that is supposedly progressive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

 

Show me where I ever said the rich hadn't been in control, please.  

Wordslinger wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What makes you think that the rich have not always been in charge since the dawn of mankind?

Your perception of history and the wealthy/powerful not being in control is amusing at best in it's childish naivety.

The most we can hope for is an attempt at balancing it so that the poor and middle class are not completely stomped on. However this new generation of leaders have shown that the supposed morals and ethics that are almost mandatorily taught in colleges today have little to no meaning to them when it comes to supporting some agenda that is supposedly progressive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

Of course the rich have always, throughout history wielded the power, this is not a news flash.

Obviously it is to the person I was talking too.

othershoe1030 wrote:Which new generation of leaders are you referring to? What ethics are you referring to? and how does this connect to the rich? and how does it relate to a progressive agenda?

Why should I respond to any of your questions when you and others avoid responding to mine? After all if you disagree with me or any other moderate or conservative on the forum you and your little group of friends are just going to tell us how stupid we are, how we don't understand, how we have no reading comprehension, etc...

So instead you can take that last sentence and apply it to yourself.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnNAGLAc_w

Dear Othershoe, I think you've hurt his feelings ...

othershoe1030 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:And, while I have reservations, I hope he means it:

"Now we have to choose what we want that future to look like. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and rising chances for everyone who makes the effort?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

His opponents say that only the rich should rule and never pay any taxes.

And that the minimum wage should be eliminated.

It's good to know your enemies.

Exactly but now all of a sudden someone has sent all the GOP competitors a message telling them to say they are suddenly worried about the middle class slipping through the cracks.

I mean when I hear these folks speaking in Iowa I'm wondering if there is something wrong with the sound track on my TV.  Am I really hearing those words coming out of the mouths of Republicans? It is so totally out of character and 180 degree turn from all their trickle down BS.

Surely it will even be difficult for ardent followers of their standard positions to make this transition to populism?
A wolf in sheep's clothing...

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:And, while I have reservations, I hope he means it:

"Now we have to choose what we want that future to look like. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and rising chances for everyone who makes the effort?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

His opponents say that only the rich should rule and never pay any taxes.

And that the minimum wage should be eliminated.

It's good to know your enemies.

How has that worked out over the past six years?

Your first statement is a lie you believe in your own mind.

No booby, it's my colon you're looking around, not my head.

Yes, the minimum wage should be eliminated.

Investing 7/28/2013 @ 2:32PM 27,857 views

Barack Obama Has Been Talking About Helping The Middle Class Since 2008

The President promised the New York Times he would talk about jobs, the economy, and the middle class once a week for the remainder of 2013. But, just talking won’t create jobs, grow the economy or strengthen the middle class. No; what Obama needs today is a bold fiscal policy of stimulus that will by dint of spending create jobs, raise median take-home pay and bulwark the middle class. And he probably can’t do that unless he gets closer to balancing the budget deficit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/07/28/barack-obama-is-no-franklin-roosevelt/

Screw Amerika Inc.!  Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:And, while I have reservations, I hope he means it:

"Now we have to choose what we want that future to look like. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and rising chances for everyone who makes the effort?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

His opponents say that only the rich should rule and never pay any taxes.

And that the minimum wage should be eliminated.

It's good to know your enemies.

How has that worked out over the past six years?

Your first statement is a lie you believe in your own mind.

No booby, it's my colon you're looking around, not my head.

Yes, the minimum wage should be eliminated.

Investing 7/28/2013 @ 2:32PM 27,857 views

Barack Obama Has Been Talking About Helping The Middle Class Since 2008

The President promised the New York Times he would talk about jobs, the economy, and the middle class once a week for the remainder of 2013. But, just talking won’t create jobs, grow the economy or strengthen the middle class. No; what Obama needs today is a bold fiscal policy of stimulus that will by dint of spending create jobs, raise median take-home pay and bulwark the middle class. And he probably can’t do that unless he gets closer to balancing the budget deficit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/07/28/barack-obama-is-no-franklin-roosevelt/

Screw Amerika Inc.!  Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.

You lied, you know it, we're accustomed to it so why all the false denial?

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm for individual liberty. I don't care what you collectivists call yourselves... don't tread on me.

So how do you square the ideal of individual liberty with a society ruled by the rich few? How do you achieve individual liberty? Under what system? Are you advocating for anarchy?

Great question!

Our constitution was constructed to protect the individual's rights. What today can be rationalized to protect the masses or for a greater good is not constitutional when applied to an individual. Take the metadata for instance... would it be legal to apply a warrantless search and collection of data to one person? No... but throw in a muddled rational to protect all and the individual is trampled. Our rights and liberties are strongest when applied to an individual level... not at a collectivist level.

What comic book are you relying upon for your history?  Our Constitution was created by the rich, for the rich and of the rich.  Then as time went by it was modified to suit the needs of the day.  At first, only a white male who owned property could vote.  

You don't like the current rash of NSA and other digital surveillance of us all, protected by the Patriot Act and other security crapola?  We agree on something.  But it's clear you think it's perfectly okay and proper for 1% of the American population to control 50% of the total cash, and then invest some of the money to buy elections.

Screw Amerika Inc.!  Corporate control of our government through campaign financing.  

What makes you think that the rich have not always been in charge since the dawn of mankind?

Your perception of history and the wealthy/powerful not being in control is amusing at best in it's childish naivety.

The most we can hope for is an attempt at balancing it so that the poor and middle class are not completely stomped on. However this new generation of leaders have shown that the supposed morals and ethics that are almost mandatorily taught in colleges today have little to no meaning to them when it comes to supporting some agenda that is supposedly progressive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

Of course the rich have always, throughout history wielded the power, this is not a news flash. Which new generation of leaders are you referring to? What ethics are you referring to? and how does this connect to the rich? and how does it relate to a progressive agenda?

Wordslinger wrote:And, while I have reservations, I hope he means it:

"Now we have to choose what we want that future to look like. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and rising chances for everyone who makes the effort?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003


His opponents say that only the rich should rule and never pay any taxes.
It's good to know your enemies.

Markle wrote:
Is that NOT your post and, therefore, your lie

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:And, while I have reservations, I hope he means it:

"Now we have to choose what we want that future to look like. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and rising chances for everyone who makes the effort?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003


His opponents say that only the rich should rule and never pay any taxes.
It's good to know your enemies.

Markle wrote:
Is that NOT your post and, therefore, your lie