What part of the English language escapes you? All of it?
"Redistribution of wealth" implies that money is taken from one group of people and GIVEN to another group; a straight-up trade.
Nope, wrong definition...try again... (Hint not a 'straight up trade'...Read up on Marx and Lenin)
That's completely different from everyone paying into a pool (taxes) and that pool being used to provide services that benefit everyone.
Irrelevant Logic... Not mutually exclusive: What the Gov taxes me has nothing to do with how the gov distributes that money afterword... (There is a correlation where the government is the common thread) but he functions are different. And just in case you haven't noticed, The Gov just printed a boatload of un-backed dollars (funny money) to bail out assholes, who apparently get the better end of the 'Straight up Trade' deal... Think about it... What does the word "deficit" mean... More importantly, how did it get there...?
This is what I meant by a conservative, political "bogyman". Right-wingers like to frame the taxes discussion as "redistribution of wealth" because it creates an unpalatable selection of words; it paints a mental image that is unpleasant to anyone listening to the conversation.
Yeah, it might just be painting ..."the truth" in a metaphorical manner to ease the pain of the reality. ..I'm just saying...
No one wants to have their hard earned money "given" to someone of lesser means. I work hard for my money too; I don't want it to just be "taken" and "given" to someone else who isn't as educated as me and doesn't work as hard. That image gets put into people's minds and it is an unsavory image. And that is precisely why right-wingers frame the argument that way. But it's wrong. And it's divisive.
I don't mind giving money to less fortunate people...and in Fact I've done so quite often... I just don't need to be accused by folks that I am somehow a cold hearted bastard, If I opt to NOT give money... The real twist is that such critics are really good at spending my money, but never spending their own... (Acorn ring a bell?)
Try reading comprehension again. No one has a monopoly on community services. You're not comprehending my point. That's on you.
I could point out a dozen errors in your writing style..But I'm too damn tired right now...
I'm trying to refute that idea of what conservatives think a "liberal" is. Conservatives have taken the "liberal" label and turned it into an adversarial ideaby defining it a certain way - specifically so they have an "opponent" to battle against. But their definition is wrong.
Okay, I'll go along with you here...but FYI ... In 1960, we had cool people called hippies...( I was there and it really was cool.) Hippies branched off and became Commune hippies... They held their own pretty good until a jackass named Charles Manson changed the image of commune life... (Him ...and the Dukes of hazard) ... In the 70's the first significant division between hippies came about in a battle of the sexes...whereby we then had Hippies AND Feminists... (who were not cool) . Both groups sustained "liberal" tenets. When the pill, Helen Gurley Brown, and Gloria Steinham were invented, Hippies learned the hard way that love was no longer free. Gloria Steinham renounced the institution of marriage, stating that she didnt 'need' a man. In the 80s The feminists movement splintered into abortion rights and into the gay movements. Hippies of the 60's were scattered across the universe and thinned out (Except for a large colony of rare Hippies in San Francisco). In the 1990s, Gloria Steinham got married. Clinton (a pot smoker who didn't inhale, and who got a blow job in the oval office by a chick who didn't swallow) cut back the Military budget. When He realized he f**k up... He needed to justify reinstating the budget,, so he created a little war called the Balkins Conflict. He lied to all the democrats , saying that Serbians were causing "Racial Cleansing, in order to win over the sentiments of the democratic party...(to get money outta their pockets to fund the war, to justify a new military budget) ...
There really is no point to the story, but I did want to illustrate how people have been lied to, beaten up and kicked around by hippies who still believe they are cool and liberal.
Liberals no more want to take money and "give" to another group of people than "Conservatives" do.
Uh..huh....
You see, the problem I have with most political discussion is that they exist to create division. If you really look at things completely, you find that both camps actually want a lot of the same things. Hence, no "monopoly" on community service. Conservatives or Liberals, Democrats or Republicans - everyone enjoys driving on well-maintained highways, living under the protection of the best military in the world, having access to quality and affordable healthy care, etc. Where the camps diverge is in the implementation of some of these benefits, but they all still want them.
Ok I concur with that.. (I said I apply common sense, didnt I?)
It embarrasses me to read a post like that from a fellow American. We're a better country than that, but we keep posting divisive things like that. We keep the discussion at a low level; we make sure to use words that divide; we make sure to use words that anger and polarize. That post, humorous as you might find it, does nothing to further the conversation or improve our lives.
One thing I will never agree to is
censorship of my thoughts... On this site or any other site. That's not to say I can do anything about it, if my posts get canned...But I absolutely and unequiviocally do not apologize for anything I write...
If you feel embarrased...thats on you
