"Socialism is unAmerican" t-shirt with Obama logo. Response?

At Memorial Day cookout yesterday, a young guy (around 24) was wearing that shirt. He has Ron Paul stickers all over his vehicle. :eyes: He is the boyfriend of my sister-in-laws step-daughter. I wanted to say something, but it didn't feel like an appropriate conversation. (Nor did it seem like an appropriate shirt for a family cookout, but I digress.)

I thought it might be fun to see what folks at DU thought would have been a good comeback and/or conversation starter.



Edit: To correct apparent time travel. LOL

when you're older, I presume?"

I would opt out of both this very instant, but the pro-government folks in power won't give me that freedom. :-(

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
-- George Bernard Shaw

As to representatives in government being "pro-government" -well, I would hope so in the same way I want teachers to be pro-education, doctors to be pro-medical and and judges to be pro-justice.

Which means that you pay to play. You don't get everything you want, but you still pay into the system because you take advantages of the luxuries that you like.

If you don't like how the US functions, get out.

Being a responsible human being also means being responsible for the welfare of your fellow man. When people are in need, you must sacrifice in order to help them. The point is that they would do the same for you. The system that you denounce as "pro-government" is the ultimate example of responsibility.

Caring only for yourself is not being responsible. It is being greedy and will eventually lead to your own demise. If you honestly think that public goods haven't helped you in the past, I suggest you take a look at the police and fire department. Those two alone have probably saved your ass 10 times over by now.

. . . it's that you pay into it NOW so it will be there for you when you get OLDER. You know, when you'll be most in need of it.

Individual financial investments (HSAs, IRAs, 401ks, etc) don't always pan out, as the past 8 years have proven beyond a doubt. It assumes no life-changing landmines (such as major bankrupting illnesses, accidents, financial disaster, etc), no bad luck, no divorce, constant contribution and an average yearly return rate of 10% over their term. Not all of us are market timing geniuses.

I'd rather have something I KNOW is going to be there no matter what, because I paid into it. Social Security and Medicare aren't designed to be investments, but insurance for something you need when you need it.

Here's the info to opt out of Social Security and Medicare.
Think about it carefully before you opt out.
When you hit 65, you will get nothing and will have to pay for (very expensive) private health insurance for the rest of your life.

Info:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p517/ar02.html#en_US_publink100033558

Form 4029 to drop out of SS and Medicare:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf

:)

Just give me all your benefits. Then you won't have to dirty yourself with them.

I'd opt out of taxes that feed the military, "but the pro-government folks in power won't give me that freedom."

Or something like that... :eyes:




"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

A free society can have roads; they just would not be owned by the government. Rather than paying taxes to a wasteful and inefficient government in order to maintain the roads, you'd pay tolls to the owner of the road, who would have a vested interest in keeping waste and inefficiency to an absolute minimum. You'll probably say a private road owner would try to gouge for use of his or her roads, but I say open competition would keep that greed in check. And if someone manages to buy up all the roads in an area and tries to charge users an exorbitant fee, then there arises a great profit incentive to develop alternative modes of transportation that do not require the use of roads, such as personal VTOL vehicles and autogyros. Imagine that, technological progress arising not from the government, but from private enterprise!

I can only imagine what a nightmare that would be, things like roads should never be left in private hands. Our health care system here sucks because of private enterprise.

I-70 from Kansas City, Kansas to Topeka is a toll road and so is I-35 from Topeka to Portland, Kansas. Because of the tolls, they seem to have more money to improve the road. However, unlike your usual insterstate where you can just get on it and go, you have to stop at a bottleneck every so often to get a ticket and then also to pay your toll. I don't see how this can be more efficient than government roads, what with the expense of having people sit in booths and collect tolls all day and night as well as ordinary road repair expenses. And the idea that competition would keep tolls low is pretty laughable. As if there are gonna be a bunch of parallel roads.

How would you like to pay $930 per MONTH for electricity-with no heat or air-for a three bedroom home. That's how much many people paid to Enron when they ran California's utility system. My best friend is still battling with them over it.

You Libertarians are no different than communists; you both discount human nature. People are greedy and they want their own stuff-and they'll screw anyone over to get even more. That why neither system works.

This is the fucked up part of libertarianism. If you think a private company will ever do ANYTHING other than seek a profit at the expense of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else, you are exercising pure fantasy.

Get out of here.

:hi:

Currently doing battle against a private water company (I'm in Florida, they're in Pennsylvania) that has rates double/triple of those charged by the city/county. My area lies in between the dividing lines and apparently was sold to the highest bidder before I relocated here. (Thank you Jeb!).

:popcorn:

You can of course point to a specific, expansive and dynamic industrialized culture that has used zero tax revenue to reinvest back into national infrastructure, that revenue instead coming directly and solely from private means, yes...?

Or (and I find this more likely) is your position based merely on the theoretical and imaginative-- never tested on a large, national macro-scale of socio-economics?

I'll have you to know that I removed those pages before wiping my arse!

p.s. I'm hoping you meant to respond to the Ron Paul Zombie. :hi:

Sorry :)

"Oh, geeeeez, my Parkinson's is acting up. Damn, that shit ain't gonna come out, sonny, sorry. Wear that thing and it'll look like ya pissed yourself while passed out drunk. Sorry, buddy!"

:rofl:

Even if it's only loans, ask how an 18-year-old with no credit/no income qualifies for a low-interest loan worth thousands of Dollars.

That really pisses off the Ron Paul supporters. :rofl:

My education was financed by Florida's Bright Futures program, which is funded from the state lottery system. Playing the lottery is voluntary, so no one was forced to give up the fruits of their labor to finance my education.

I am not, nor have I ever been, in debt. I purchased my Prius (the one with the Ron Paul stickers "all over it") from its previous owner, and I paid in cash, which incidentally, I did not inherit but rather earned and saved from my job as a software engineer.

I got my first credit card when I was 19. It had a $500 credit limit, and I used it for all of my day-to-day purchases and paid it off every month. I never carried a balance or missed a payment. Last year, before the big credit implosion, I had a combined credit line of over $25,000, and I still have never missed a payment or carried a balance on any card.

Because that is what you are. Lucky.


And that is my main issue with all of the libertarians. Most of them are fiscally comfortable males. Have you ever thought that maybe your situation is a rare one? That where you are now is based more on luck than simply "hard work"? Because if everyone who worked hard was able to provide all the time, my mother would be a fucking multi millionaire. But instead she is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt thanks to medical problems. See no matter how hard you work for your money, there will always be corporations trying to take it from you. That's all they care about.

Fortunately, you have not fell victim to their death grip yet. But give it time.

My education is being financed mostly by scholarships. But a good portion is still coming out of my wallet. When I eventually go to law school, I will have to pull out massive amounts of student loans. And that's because I can't afford to pay 40K+ a year to attend law school without loans.

The system is set up to punish the "poor but willing" types. It rewords those who are living comfortably and try just hard enough to get by. Which is completely ass backwards.

And state universities cost a lot more to run than tuition provides. They all receive state funds.

Wow.

You DID move permanently to Loopyville, didn't ya?

News to you, pal:? Libertarianism is as much a Utopian pipe dream as communism, if not more.

And Ayn Rand was a horrible, horrible writer with a chip on her shoulder.

As someone else said, move to Somalia. No evil government to "force" you to "give up the fruits of your labor." You'll love it.

Berlusconi, et al.

Now all of a sudden a Democrat is president and HEY, let's dunk some tea, biatch!! It's ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!

One of the greatest anti-tea party signs went something like "Forgotten Who Got Us in Hot Water and Now You Want to Make TEA?" Hilarious. But they didn't forget, because the Tea Partiers are pretty much Republicans calling themselves "libertarians".

I don't really think I'd have a problem with Libertarians if they didn't share so much economic commonalities with unabashedly fascist corporocrat Republicans; but since they do, fuck them and the Hummer they drove in on.

Interesting you should mention this. I attended the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party and was disturbed with how it seemed to be overrun with neoconservatives who preferred to bash the current administration rather than talk positively about possibilities for the future.

For what it's worth, I never supported the Bush regime. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, waterboarding and other forms of torture, pre-emptive military strikes, and so many other egregious violations of liberty brought about during that administration. I was not old enough to vote in 2000, but I voted for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President, in 2004. So before you go labeling me a Republican in libertarian clothing, please know that I disagree just as strongly with the big-government Republicans as I disagree with the big-government Democrats.

I must sincerely disagree with your assertion that the libertarian viewpoint shares any commonalities with fascism. Fascism, as you know, is the system wherein the means of production are privately owned but are controlled by the government. I have never met a libertarian who believed the government should have any say whatsoever in how an individual runs his or her business. Libertarians tend to be minarchists or downright anarchists, both of which are a far cry from fascist.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

He stated that capitalism needs an invisible hand. That means regulation. And the regulation obviously cannot come from private industry because that defies the purpose of regulated capitalism. It comes directly from government.

To suggest that absolutely unfettered capitalism would work is ludicrous. We are baring witness to the shortcomings of unregulated capitalism right now. Who ever posted before was right, you rely on the ideology that humans aren't selfish and wouldn't be willing to off someone to make an extra buck. Which is contradictory to clear evidence over the last century. Humans, when given the option to gain personal wealth, will gladly take that over helping their fellow man. At least for the most part. And it especially becomes true the more power they gain because of their wealth. Wealth begats power and power begats wealth.

So capitalism in a pure, unregulated form is completely self-destructive. In order to counter that, the government must regulate private industry.

Your wise quotes are betraying you. They serve my argument more than yours.

An industry like private health insurance is naturally self-destructive because it puts capital boldly above human life. It puts profit over people. It turns humanity into a commodity. There is no incentive to help your fellow man. In fact, there is more incentive to let someone die than to give them an experimental procedure.

So if you go by that Jefferson quote, if the government wants to restrain men from harming each other, they would ban all forms of private insurance industries. Because a natural by product that they produce is suffering. There is no avoiding it. The only way that health care can be truly helpful is through a single payer system.

According to the 14 Points of Fascism (which Republicans have followed almost to the letter these past 28 years), point 9 (Corporate power is protected) clearly states that "The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite."

That doesn't mean government RUNS businesses, but should act as a facilitator to the NEEDS of only Big Businesses. In other words, giving corporations and the wealthy that run them tax breaks, grants, tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, trade agreements that allow corporations to pretty much do whatever they please at the expense of wages, labor and environmnental concerns and deregulation that removes rules put in place to protect workers and guard against near-monopolies and borderline (if not blatant) criminal activity.

Which leads into point 10 (Labor power is suppressed): Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. As a worker and/or businessperson, labor unions gave you every work right you enjoy today. Without strong unions, our wages would be stomped on even further than they already are, you'd be working next to children seven days a week and you wouldn't have vacations. Nor would you have safety, benefits of any kind, clean water or any place in negotiations.

Pretty much every libertarian I've ever talked to still believes in this "rugged individualism" canard, and when they're not into that fallistic belief, they assert that the "Markets aren't working because they were not allowed to be 'free enough." It's laughable.

You know, because the Gramm/Leach/Biley act and Garn/St Germain bill, both of which pretty much shot pre-Reagan regulations to hell and allowed Wall Street to turn S&Ls and real estate into their personal mints, just WEREN'T ENOUGH.

A giant lowering of taxes on the wealthy (which, if you believe Republicans, should have made them hire thousands per WEEK! I mean, all that MONEY they get to keep! Surely they'll use it for good and not be greedy, right?) just wasn't enough.

Deregulating every industry under the sun from air traffic to telecommunications for the past 35 years so giant corporations can merge and take over the small fish under the guise of "encouraging competition" just WASN'T ENOUGH.

Zero-sum Globalization JUST WASN'T ENOUGH.

The Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand way of running things has failed wherever it's been tried because it assumes the wage payer is going to act for the benefit of everyone and not just himself. It also assumes infinite amount of resources and capital in a world where both are finite. Their philosophies and the results expected from them have proven to be grossly overestimated, as unbridled corporatism, just as it did with many South American nations that served as its litmus test, has plunged our country into a wage-stagnant, unemployed hellhole with no adequate social safety net for those who got fired through no fault of their own.

You all hide behind the cliche "well a poor person never gave me a job", which is silly because a poor person CAN'T give you a job. It also doesn't mean that the wealthy person will act in the best interests of humanity.

Poor people didn’t send their jobs overseas. Poor people were the ones who have seen their wages stagnant relative to inflation since 1979. Poor people didn’t experience a 1000% increase in their income since 1990. Poor people don’t have the capability of starting new industries or even inventing anything anymore; they don’t have the start-up capital, equipment or expensive attorneys necessary when a corporation tries to overtake them or sue them. Poor people didn’t shift the responsibility of paying taxes from the rich on to themselves. Poor people aren’t being forced from their homes due to an unforeseen amount of bad luck or a major illness. Poor people aren’t the ones building these McCastles because there's a bigger profit to be made on these things compared to reasonable homes; many middle/working/poor classes, depending on their debt situation, can only buy a two-bedroom apartment or older house.

Nor is there any such thing as an "entirely self-made millionaire". Did they not use public facilities in order to enhance their business plans? How about workers who used public transportation? Did the wage payer not use government land grants, not comply with OSHA regulations, not use the internet, not use public water, not use electricity, etc?

Whether you agree or not, the wage payer DOES HAVE a responsibility to people other than himself. They used government entities, every last one of them, to get where they are today. They used some kind of help from a benefactor, whether governmental or private, to get where they are today. No man is an island.

...with a cloud of "Sooooooocialism" emanating from the backside of a GOP elephant logo. Or Rush.

That's what they said for 8 years.

LOL at that!

ask him to explain what IS 'American', then...and see how far he gets before contradicting himself...

What is American? The freedom to apply one's own talents and ambitions and be rewarded for such. The freedom to live without oppression by government. The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor without fear of being forced to surrender them. These are the principles upon which this country was founded.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
-- Michael Rivero

That includes the tyrannous acts of private industry.

;-)

How about some specifics? How are ambitions and talents not being rewarded? Do you want to pay no taxes? How to fund the common goods?

I have no real disagreement with what you have written.

But to make a deity out of Ron Paul is pathetic. He has some good ideas, but is living in total impracticality.

He's a religious nut who believes that the separation of church and state is not clear. He doesn't believe in evolution (this is a doctor!!!). He's opposed to stem cell research (once again, he is a doctor!!!).

If he really believes he is so different from other repugs, why doesn't he start up his own party? He could easily quit the repugs. But he knows his base is the same - woRUSHippers! He spreads paranoia about the evil federal govt, and proposes nothing practical in response. Sure I'd love to pay zero taxes, but is that practical to keep this country going?

Sure, let's remove public schools. Great idea. Let's raise a generation who can't afford to go to school.

And let's not forget the racist and anti-semitic stuff that was written in the Ron Paul Papers (or whatever it was called). Easy to try to wash your hands clean of it. But when something is written in a publication with your name on it, you're either a complete airhead not to review it. Or you are a total bigot for allowing the stuff to be published.

There is no bigger propaganda drama queen that Ron Paul. But it's fun for his supporters to pretend he is the messiah, because they can hide behind him and bash everyone else. It's all fantasy - no practicality. Easy to propose, but not easy at all to implement.

If Ron Paul left the repugs, I would start showing him some respect. Until then, he's just a religious loudmouth with impractical ideas.

Whereas oppression by private gangs is just fine and dandy.

Gag.

I remember when I was young, selfish, ignorant, and was never going to grow old or ever get ill.

Libertarianism is just the excuse selfish people use to justify their dislike for the rest of the world.

Oh, but we still have to pay for their use of our social structures.

We have to pay for our use of your social structures, too, and you don't give us the courtesy of allowing us to opt out.

Libertarian Paradise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F05%2F06%2Fsomalia-libertarian-parad_n_197763.html&feature=player_embedded

No need to get into an actual conversation with a dittohead.

Either way, I highly recomend a course at the local community college. Political Science 101. He clearly doesn't know what fucking nonsense his shirt says.

My girlfriend (OHDEM's niece-in-law) has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science, and she has not pointed out any logical fallacy in the shirt's text. Admittedly, the use of Obama's campaign logo as the "O" in "socialism" is a hyperbole intended to emphasize the point.

I find that hard to believe, you could be some troll for all I know, how did you find out about DU?

and judging from the above posts it's clearly NOT college educated. Actually, I doubt that it has yet to attend High School.

:eyes:

If you are who you are you clearly do not know what the fuck your shirt says....look up the word Socialism in a real world encyclopedia if you will. If you are not (and most likely you are not) then please fuck off.

Seriously kiddo try again.

That would have been my response anyways.

N/T

so I wound't worry about the "appropriateness" of it.

I would ask him, if Obama's a socialist, why isn't he for single-payer?

If Obama's a socialist, what are all those Wall Street folks doing in his administration?

If he's a socialist, why didn't he repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

This is perhaps the only worthwhile reply in this whole topic. Thank you, Enrique. I would engage in enlightened political discussion any time. My own father is a staunch Democrat and an avid supporter of Barack Obama's, and he and I have political discussions all the time. We disagree on a great many points, but we are always interested in understanding why the other side believes as they believe.

Once, while we were in a bookstore, he asked, "If I buy <Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope"> for you, will you read it?" I responded, "If I buy Ron Paul's book <"The Revolution: A Manifesto"> for you, will you read it?" After a short pause, he said yes, and I told him, "You've got a deal." I read Obama's book, and he read Paul's book.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis

Being condescending isn't helping you any either.

he's the one who was wearing that shirt.

and not a very good one at that.

lol

Let's hear it sparky!

:popcorn:

is libertarian whack job. If Libertarian politics had ever been in control, we would still hold slaves, we would have no public education, our water and food wouldn't be safe, child-labor would still be used, wages would be suppressed, women and blacks wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Paultards don't realize that his political philosophies are regressive and work against everything that has strengthened the middle class, protected the poor and elderly and provided safe roads, quality education and clean utilities.


"Fuck the Poor"

shouldn't be too hard.

He can spend the next 8 years eating his heart out. That's my response. Oh, and peace, young dope. BTW, wake the hell up.

He'll tell us how he's so worried about how this country is falling toward socialism. Never mind that he's attending a state college and received Pell grants to pay for his tuition (I asked him). Never mind that his father works for a construction company that has gotten the bulk of its work in recent years building new schools under a state school construction funding program. Never mind that his mother worked as a case worker for a local public agency. Never mind that his grandfather next door has received thousands of dollars in conservation and farm program payments over the years.

It's only welfare and socialism is someone else gets it in these peoples' minds.

Bless their little brains.

The fucking world revolves around their superior godlike talent to create their own fate...

"I have to disagree with you and Obama. I think America would benefit greatly by a shift to socialism."

is socialist isn't it? So we're "un-American" from the get-go.

followed by a wink. ;)

saw that some where and thought it probably applies pretty well here.

I could wear the same t-shirt

with one of those goofy fucking evil smirks on his face.

Libertarians: Republicans without the courage of their own convictions


I read a clever variation on DU once-- Libertarians: republicans who want to smoke pot-- but that may not be Memorial Day Cookout appropriate....:P

They seem to prefer isolation, or if not isolation want the US to have a very limited role in the international stage.