Gipper
Well-Known Member
This from the great Justice Antonin Scalia... a high graduation speech.
So true. But sadly, liberalism will destroy our greatness.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
We are the greatest...
- Thread starter Gipper
- Start date
This from the great Justice Antonin Scalia... a high graduation speech.
So true. But sadly, liberalism will destroy our greatness.
Werbung:
We were the greatest. We were the greatest nation on earth because we (our people) had the highest standard of living on earth...not just our rich people. If you have not noticed, our people stopped having the highest standard of living and lost to the European countries some years ago, coinciding with the disparity with the increasing executive pay relative to the workers pay.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You did not listen to the Judge. For that you must be punished. One hour detention for you.
The Judge said we are the greatest because of our people. People!!! Get it?
But that does not include you. You are a socialist and as such, you hate the rich. You hate the private sector and capitalism. Too bad for you.
Why don't you immigrate to Europe where the standard of living is so much better?
One of the reasons I do not immigrate to Europe is that someday the working class will grow tired of the exploitation by the wealthy, guillotine them, take their stolen wealth. (I stay in the hope of getting to pull the lanyard on the likes of you.)
Or, at least executive pay to worker pay ratio will be reduced to a reasonable amount and the standard of living for all Americans will again be the highest in the world.
There is no point in having a "rich" country filled with poor people.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
why don't you flee to a non socialist nation. since you think this nation is all commies now....also let me know if you find one more Capitalistic...so no health care plans for a start...may I recommend try Africa for a few that don't have a health care plan.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
No way pocketpool. I intend to stay here and kick the likes of you and all the other commie socialist progressive anarchist marxist fascist pigs out of my country. The day of reckoning for you traitorous bastards is coming.
Only my kind has no intention of killing you like you do me. History shows your kind is very murderous and mine most forgiving. However, we do plan to tar and feather you and deport you to Cuba.
What do you say? Lets get the party started right now. And since you are a godless bunch afraid of guns, guess who wins?
Now, there's a diverse mixture of meaningless political labels!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Actually they are not that diverse. They all pretty much believe the same things. And, only a lefty would think them meaningless.
Why is it lefties dislike labels so much?
Actually, I'm right handed. Obama is a lefty, though.
I can't speak for lefties, then, but labels are OK so long as they have some agreed upon meaning. The labels you are using interchangeably have different, sometimes opposite meanings.
Until you clarify your thinking, and begin to use words that describe what you are trying to describe, your posts will remain contradictory.
I agree with you PLC1.
What I've realized is that most Americans see that a mega extreme from either side hurts too many and is not good representation. Americans like a moderate approach. That's why it appears that both parties might seem to be somewhat similar once they actually get into office. It's the old... run with your base but govern from the middle that is often what we see.
What it appears Gip and the Teabaggers want to do is push an uber radicalize stance from the Far Far Right. It's no different in ignorant design than say PETA wanting it to be illegal for Americans to wear fur & leather or eat meat.
Radicalized self serving extremism is radicalized self serving extremism be it from the Right or the Left.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
We were the greatest, now we are not although I can see no other greater. What has happened is that we are becoming the same as all other nations with the United States becoming the equivalent of the other nations rather then the leader of the Free World.
Take the issue of "dissent". While we still have the right to dissent it has been watered down to the point where the People have become irrelevant. The People have opposed such measures as NAFTA, and GATT/WTO; the healthcare bill; the bail out of corporations, and banks, and now the unions, yet they were passed. The People oppose amnesty for illegals, yet it appears we will once again go down that road without any serious attempt to secure the border the recent decision to place the National Guard on the border notwithstanding. The government realizes that they have to do something, so, as a sop to the People they make a show of this which is only 1200 soldiers which is less then one per mile.
Then we have the rulings by the USSC which favor the corporation, and extend their influence, and power, over that of the People. In the Kelo decision the corproate entity was given the "right" to use the power of the government to take away your land for the "public good" rather then the "public use" as expressed in the Constitution.
Then there was the Citizen United case where Scalia, one who I usually agree with, declared:
"Despite the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up, it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. If so, how came there to be so many of them? The dissent’s statement that there were few business corporations during the eighteenth century—“only a few hundred during all of the 18th century”—is misleading. Post, at 35, n. 53. There were approximately 335 charters issued to business corporations in the United States by the end of the 18th century. 2 See 2 J. Davis,"
The Founders, especially Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Jackson, deeply opposed the power of the corporate world. Basically only Hamilton supported it. The Constitutions of the first 19 States deeply limited the activities of the corporation. So, for Scalia to make a comment such as above is totally disengenuous, and, simply because of the wealth that corporations contol, gave that entity a greater voice then the People. Scalia's comment that "the dissent's statement that there were few business corporations during the 18th. century", only a few hundred, is then supported by the very authority he cites which says there were 335, yet he says they were wrong.
Then there is the issue of generosity. The Government has always been very free with the Peoples money often in total disreagrd for the Peoples wishes. Why do we as a nation give aid to the countries enemies such as Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or North Korea?
On the private level, the richest people in the country give on an average less then 1% of their income to charities. On the other hand, the poorest give 7 to 10% of their income, and when it comes to volunteer work it is most often those in the bottom 20% of the income structure that give of their time. And Conservatives who attend church give far more then the Liberal.
Anyway, that is my opinion, and unless the People rise up, and take back what has been taken from them, or suppressed, the United States will become just another country in a global society.
Take the issue of "dissent". While we still have the right to dissent it has been watered down to the point where the People have become irrelevant. The People have opposed such measures as NAFTA, and GATT/WTO; the healthcare bill; the bail out of corporations, and banks, and now the unions, yet they were passed. The People oppose amnesty for illegals, yet it appears we will once again go down that road without any serious attempt to secure the border the recent decision to place the National Guard on the border notwithstanding. The government realizes that they have to do something, so, as a sop to the People they make a show of this which is only 1200 soldiers which is less then one per mile.
Then we have the rulings by the USSC which favor the corporation, and extend their influence, and power, over that of the People. In the Kelo decision the corproate entity was given the "right" to use the power of the government to take away your land for the "public good" rather then the "public use" as expressed in the Constitution.
Then there was the Citizen United case where Scalia, one who I usually agree with, declared:
"Despite the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up, it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. If so, how came there to be so many of them? The dissent’s statement that there were few business corporations during the eighteenth century—“only a few hundred during all of the 18th century”—is misleading. Post, at 35, n. 53. There were approximately 335 charters issued to business corporations in the United States by the end of the 18th century. 2 See 2 J. Davis,"
The Founders, especially Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Jackson, deeply opposed the power of the corporate world. Basically only Hamilton supported it. The Constitutions of the first 19 States deeply limited the activities of the corporation. So, for Scalia to make a comment such as above is totally disengenuous, and, simply because of the wealth that corporations contol, gave that entity a greater voice then the People. Scalia's comment that "the dissent's statement that there were few business corporations during the 18th. century", only a few hundred, is then supported by the very authority he cites which says there were 335, yet he says they were wrong.
Then there is the issue of generosity. The Government has always been very free with the Peoples money often in total disreagrd for the Peoples wishes. Why do we as a nation give aid to the countries enemies such as Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or North Korea?
On the private level, the richest people in the country give on an average less then 1% of their income to charities. On the other hand, the poorest give 7 to 10% of their income, and when it comes to volunteer work it is most often those in the bottom 20% of the income structure that give of their time. And Conservatives who attend church give far more then the Liberal.
Anyway, that is my opinion, and unless the People rise up, and take back what has been taken from them, or suppressed, the United States will become just another country in a global society.
"Stolen wealth".. what a joke. Is all the money you earn really "stolen" too?
Yea... if only those greedy corporate types would just take less pay, then all the world's problems would go away..
"Poor" is a relative term.
Werbung:
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
What do you call wealth gained by the use of force through the government, and encouraged by the corporations?
Think Kelo.
How do you justify a corporation beoing able to pay a CEO, and others, millions in bonuses while they import legal, and illegal, aliens for their cheap labor to replace American workers who are then unemployed?
Remember, back in the hay day of the American economy CEO's only received 20 to 30 times the salary of the average employee, not the 200 to 300 times that we see today even thought the salary of the average worker is stagnant, or declining.
Depends on who the relative is.
However, would you be satisified when the American worker is earning the equivalent of a Chinese, or Mexican, worker? Maybe Americans should get used to living in a hovel too while the wealthy live like the King of Saudi Arabia. Is that to your liking?
Similar threads
