Confessions of a recovered Libtard

[soothsayer]

Many years ago, at a lonely and disillusioned time in my young life, I sought consolation and "hope" for a better future outside my own independent efforts...from something "bigger than myself".

I had made the acquaintance of an admirable, charismatic fellow who invited me to hear him speak, gain the fellowship of others united in spirit, and participate in satisfying community and personal activities.

He was an amiable young pastor of a local Lutheran church with whom my employer had business. I was not a lutheran, not "religious" and surprisingly, given my upbringing, always held that I was agnostic at best, never identifying myself as a "believer" in anything supernatural, but albeit skeptically, recognized the social aspect of community. Furthermore, the church basement had a fully equipped gym, (the pastor was AAA weightlifer in college) and I was newly moved to the neighborhood, so I innocently went around after work.

I was young, driven by the biological drive to "pair-bond" and reproduce, and was longing to find a decent and reliable lifemate. I attended Sunday services, mostly out of obligation to my newfound friends and the generous pastor who never proselytized or spoke much of philosophical or moral topics. They were friends and nothing more.

As I listened to the sermons, I "re-kindled" what little religious indctrination I had, and during our evening workouts, I would question the pastor about commonly held beliefs about "good works" and "earthly rewards" and spiritual benefits of adhering to the beliefs professed in the bible. During these discussions, the pastor corrected my misunderstandings about "what goes around comes around" and stressed that there are no guarantees... that his mother was a saint and yet was struck with horrible illness and early death, that sometimes the most evil and selfish never seem to get their just desserts (in this life, anyway) and that one was compelled to "Do good" but that concerning piety, or generosity, or tithing, etc etc one was to be very careful to understand that doing so was strictly its own reward.

Well... deciding that if I were to give this try, I was going to do it right. I was living in a "poor" neighborhood, after all.... and single, earning a very good salary with very low rent and expenses, and swept up in my newfound friendships and "community spirit" I decided, entirely on my own, unrequested and unheralded, to anonymously flip a full after-tax 10% or more of my pay into the offering plate in cash every week. After all, I was "blessed" and really, wouldnt miss the money.

I soon met a captivating young woman (a virgin... not that really mattered much to me) and was married. Hah! Maybe the preacher was right, doctrinally, that one's good works don't automatically yield earthly blessings... but in my case, my disillusionment and aimlessness and loneliness in life was now swept away, seemingly, by some omnipotent supernatural hand! I was indeed blessed.

Well, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, I was soon divorced (she was a little too judgmental... more in love with the letter of "the law" than she possessed "the spirit" of the law regarding her reiligious beliefs) and I realize I never really truly "believed" in god anyway.. that I was just at a lonely or misguided point in my life, but one thing I can thank the whole experience with the church for:
It has made me more tolerant, more understanding and more sympathetic of others.

I now know how how so many feel, and what they must be going through in their lives when they listen to Obama, being seduced into advocating imposing their philosophy on others, and advocate taxation. In the "believer" sense, I was once a "libtard".

No wait, then again, maybe that's not quite so.. because even though I chose to believe in certain fantastic things, and sincerely wished that others come to "see" the same things I knew so strongly were "true"... on second thought, I wasn't quite a "libtard" because I never advocated imposing my beliefs and actions on others by force.

[Cruella]

Is this a debate, please?

[soothsayer]

Oh..
well... I guess we could debate whether we should afford silly misguided zealots searching for "hope" and change" through fanatical socialism the same tolerance we should afford silly, unsophisticated superstitious religious believers, because they are remarkably similar....
even if the former are more insidious, imposing and destructive .

[lsbskins1]

Or, we could debate how silly it is to equate a distasteful religious experience and bad marriage to being a liberal. I mean, seriously, what are the similarities you claim? I am a liberal and I accept no dogma. I am a liberal and I trust nothing on faith. I am a liberal and do not expect salvation to be delivered by any institution. I expect my government to do what government is supposed to do, serve the interests of it's citizens, but being a liberal, I bother to be aware of history and know that even though it ought to look out for the interests of it's citizens, government very often gets high-jacked by the simple minded and/or the greedy and needs to be held accountable. So, how does that equate with faithful religious zealotry?

[Angry Citizen]

In the "believer" sense, I was once a "libtard".

In the "human" sense, you're still just a lonely, misguided soul. Instead of disagreeing, you feel the need to hate other human beings for nothing more than their beliefs. The sad fact is, I agree with you about a lot of things in politics, and now I can add religion to the mix (though I think being a Dawkins-style atheist makes me a little more committed than your devout apathy). The problem here, and the real irreconcilable difference, is your need to hate people. You quite literally hate President Obama. That is sad and downright sickening, that an American will hate a fellow American just for disagreeing with him.

[soothsayer]

So, how does that equate with faithful religious zealotry?

Just look at how posters here blindly overlook the exponential abuses of the current administration compared to the previous one. Its alot like catholics who refuse to acknowledge any occurence of abuses by the clergy... or , even more like libtards, they blind themselves to the glaring abuses preferring to console themselves with the notion that the perceived "kharmic" benefit of their "feel goodism" exceeds the elitism and corruption they choose to overlook in their chosen messiah and his crew.

Similarly, they accept higher and higher taxes feeling that their level of "blessings" within the current system will amount to their pay keeping pace with inflation and tax rates, while somehow magically not deteriorating the rest of the economy in the same way that "givers" (whether consciously aware its doctrinally true or not), convince themselves that they will be so increased commensurate with their charity to others.
The difference here, of course, that religious tithers are donating freely, whereas libtards, while accepting that their taxes increase (the ones with jobs, that is), primarily advocate such taxes with the belief that in the process they are "sticking it" to those they envy more than they will bear the burden themselves.
The great facilitator for most libtards is that they work for the government in some capacity, directly or not, and can expect their pay to keep pace with taxation, actually making real for them what is only a misguided hope on the part of the religious giver.

I am a liberal and do not expect salvation to be delivered by any institution.

Really? "War on Poverty" ring a bell to you? You can drag out all the misleading false or skewed statistics all you want.... There are more people now, at a greater proportion of the total population dependent upon govt services than ever before... and precisely because such systems exist and affect people's behavior toward irresponsibility.

I bother to be aware of history

Your idea of history is at best incomplete and inaccurate, but by your posts, it indicates you have not delved at all into the politicized pro-statist version you were fed in school, the popular culture and newsmedia.

government very often gets high-jacked by the simple minded and/or the greedy and needs to be held accountable.

Its not held accountable at all.. least of all by the statists themselves!

So, how does that equate with faithful religious zealotry?

Look at my recent posts... Every single criticism of the Bush administrtion that the press and academia have repeated over and over again such as "War Monger" "Baby Killer" "Corporatist" "War contract beneficiary" "Blood for Oil" etc etc etc have been perpetrated exponentially more already in the short time the current administration has been in office, and when pointed out, the press as well as the sycophants posting here are conspicuously mute.

That's blind fanatical devotion. Sorry.

[soothsayer]

In the "human" sense, you're still just a lonely, misguided soul. Instead of disagreeing, you feel the need to hate other human beings for nothing more than their beliefs. The sad fact is, I agree with you about a lot of things in politics, and now I can add religion to the mix (though I think being a Dawkins-style atheist makes me a little more committed than your devout apathy). The problem here, and the real irreconcilable difference, is your need to hate people. You quite literally hate President Obama. That is sad and downright sickening, that an American will hate a fellow American just for disagreeing with him.

Typical brainwashed epithet: hater !

Funny how that does not apply to all the anti-Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld rhetoric all over the place, especially by those who cannot quantify whatsover the motivation for their ire other than its "popular to do so" for if they could, they'd recognize tht their current messiah is the real embodiment of what Bush scarecely laid the groundwork for (not that I support them any more than I do Obama-- I merely point it out because "Bush hate" so thoroughly permeates the popular media culture that it goes unnoticed as such, even by you)

The term "hater" never existed prior to the doublespeak campaign having recently reached its zenith. It carries the same ring the epithet "infidel" does to a Mohammedan fundamentalist.

Whether you (thankfully) acknowledge some or even much of what I point out on these boards, you are so conditioned by the greater culture that you respond this way
(we all are influenced by the culture, especially with the forces so uniformly pervasive... I'm not claiming to be superior.. just asking you to re-examine... the written word carries risks of being misunderstood... ameliorating subtleties of tone and expression readily apparent in face-to-face discussion are absent here)

Anyway, regarding "hating Obama" for "disagreeing" with me :

That's a laugh! Everything Obama stands for is completely antithetical to individual freedom and self-determination... literally, he stands for serfdom.

Thats quite a bit more than simple "disagreement" its a violent assault on every real american's personhood.. indeed his very life.
So was much of the unconstitutional legislation that congress passed under Bush... however in practice (not that that excuses it) it was merely the "warm-up act". They are puppets of the same master.

I feel so strongly because everything Obama stands for and advocates is an active assault, whether you are capable of seeing it that way or not. If that's not "hate" then you dont know what is.

I feel so strongly because my family physically took our lives in danger in order to escape communism to come here.
My parents never accepted the propaganda they were fed because they saw firsthand their nation's economy deteriorate and its population become divided and petty and resentful of each other through the injustice and corruption while the privileged only further concentrated the wealth into the hands of those in control while diminishing opportunity for the rest. Obama's policies are already doing the same thing here.
Another reason your conditioned sensitivities may interpret my disdain for Obama as misdirected, unreasonable and as "hate" is because you have been conditioned to see the president as a dictator.. as certainly is how he sees himself.
This is so antithetical to the strictly circumscribed constitutional role of president, (yes it began long before him) that seeing the cultism and demagoguery associated with his election represents the abject condition of the american people in education and in sensibility and in their ability to become subject to demagoguery.... that it reminds me of the state in which history's populations had to have been in in order to permit past regimes with similarly ignominious potential.
That is worthy of all our "hate" in the truest sense of the word.

[Angry Citizen]

That is worthy of all our "hate" in the truest sense of the word.

Didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. Nothing is 'worthy' of hate. Well, except rapists and mass-murderers.

[soothsayer]

Nothing is 'worthy' of hate. Well, except rapists and mass-murderers.

What about being shot at from machine-gun towers at the border of a communist country, trying to escape?

Didn't even bother reading the rest of your post.

There's that closed-minded "religious" zeal at work again.

[Angry Citizen]

What about being shot at from machine-gun towers at the border of a communist country, trying to escape?

Or being shot at from mosques while invading a sovereign nation for no other reason than oil?

There's that closed-minded "religious" zeal at work again.

Oh the irony.

[Night]

Uh....liberals advocate their beliefs by force?

Sorry, it seems to me the conservatards in this country are doing that more than liberals. Abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues...they seek to impose THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else even if they don't subscribe to the religious garbage in question.

Conservatives in this country have royally screwed us over with their idiotic and misguided theology of lowering taxes and decreasing regulation. It doesn't work.

What has lowering taxes and deregulation done? Two major things. It has made the gap between the rich and poor higher than it has been in a very long time. It has also allowed this current financial crisis to happen.

It was, after all, REPUBLICAN legislation which deregulated the banking industry, allowed collateralized debt obligations, and took away states' rights to regulate banks.

[Night]

Quote by: soothsayer What about being shot at from machine-gun towers at the border of a communist country, trying to escape?

Yes, and that is exactly what liberals in the US want to turn America into! A communist country! LOL. Maybe before making yourself look like an ignorant fool by asserting that "liberals" want, you should get your information from LIBERALS. Not Rush Limbaugh. You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to say that Obama wants to turn this country communist. NONE. PERIOD.

Quote by: soothsayer There's that closed-minded "religious" zeal at work again.

Speaking of republican evangelicals....

[Night]

Quote by: soothsayer Just look at how posters here blindly overlook the exponential abuses of the current administration compared to the previous one.

Like what abuses? Outing a CIA spy for petty political reasons? Oh wait! That was the BUSH Administration, sorry. Or maybe you're talking about starting an illegal oil war? Oh wait...shoot...tat was the BUSH admin too! Hmm.
look in their chosen messiah and his crew.

Quote by: soothsayer Similarly, they accept higher and higher taxes feeling that their level of "blessings" within the current system will amount to their pay keeping pace with inflation and tax rates, while somehow magically not deteriorating the rest of the economy in the same way that "givers" (whether consciously aware its doctrinally true or not), convince themselves that they will be so increased commensurate with their charity to others.

In the same way, of course, that republicans magically believe that lowering taxes will somehow not effect deficits. As Dick Cheney stated after all, "deficits don't matter". Gotta love the republitards.

Quote by: soothsayer The difference here, of course, that religious tithers are donating freely, whereas libtards, while accepting that their taxes increase (the ones with jobs, that is), primarily advocate such taxes with the belief that in the process they are "sticking it" to those they envy more than they will bear the burden themselves. The great facilitator for most libtards is that they work for the government in some capacity, directly or not, and can expect their pay to keep pace with taxation, actually making real for them what is only a misguided hope on the part of the religious giver.

Another famous trait of conservatives, their glaring amazing levels of ignorance. You somehow don't realize that the current administration is only raising taxes on those people making over 250k a year.

[Night]

Of course, as usual, soothsayer will probably not even respond to my posts on this thread because I have dominated him in every debate on this forum.

[soothsayer]

Or being shot at from mosques while invading a sovereign nation for no other reason than oil?

You're missing my point entirely. All the Libertarian desires is for people to be left alone as much "at home" as abroad. Such military campaigns are indefensible.

Uh....liberals advocate their beliefs by force? Sorry, it seems to me the conservatards in this country are doing that more than liberals. Abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues...they seek to impose THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else even if they don't subscribe to the religious garbage in question

Yes. taxation is an imposition by force.. whether those taxes ostensibly support foreign campaigns or social engineering domestically, they are unconstitutional. Nothing prevents the presumed "majority" of libtards to effect their social engineering free of theimposition of taxes, especially when supposedly so many think alike anyway.

As far as gay marriage goes, the "gay" agenda is misplaced if it is sincere, but its illogic indicates to me that, at best, they are being played by statists who have an ulterior agenda of extending state control and dependency on as much of the population as possible, by all means possible.
"normal" heterosexual marriage and "religious" matrimony pre-existed the idea of same-sex marriage, so here, the "gay agenda" is the aggressor on an existing legal and cultural institution. If the intention was real "equality" of all persons (which I, as a libertarian feel it should be) then the campaign should be removal of current special legal recognition of all marriage (for better or worse), not the addition of a new kind, which extends the cause of statism.

Conservatives in this country have royally screwed us over with their idiotic and misguided theology of lowering taxes and decreasing regulation. It doesn't work.

Analyze your statement--- analyze the above concept.

What do you mean "screwed us over" ? And what is supposed "to work" ?

Your whole approach that you, your beliefs, your concept of government, is supposed to have the power to "do" something... and that we are supposed to be accepting of the consequences.
I believe that society should be left to evolve on its own free of manipulations by a minority with the power to influence epople's behavior economically as well as cuturally. (See false money and taxation and "education" )
All extremely powerful forces that should be free of centralized control

What has lowering taxes and deregulation done? Two major things. It has made the gap between the rich and poor higher than it has been in a very long time. It has also allowed this current financial crisis to happen.

You've not done your homework. Do I need refer you to past posts your blinders caused you to overlook?

Enclave: Brooksley Born's warnings ignored by Clinton, Bush, & Obama at America's peril
Community Reinvestment Act | Media Circus
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...4/vmck4-94.pdf
Community Reinvestment Act - Overview of the Community Reinvestment Act
The Phony Time-Gap Alibi For The Community Reinvestment Act
Maybe The Community Reinvestment Act Is A Problem
100 to Blame: The Community Reinvestment Act, Corporate Skyboxes, and More: Bruce Feirstein | Vanity Fair
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0...0FINAL_WEB.pdf
FRONTLINE: the warning: interviews: brooksley born | PBS
YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae

[soothsayer]

quote by Night

Yes, and that is exactly what liberals in the US want to turn America into! A communist country! LOL. Maybe before making yourself look like an ignorant fool by asserting that "liberals" want, you should get your information from LIBERALS.

Quote by Ibskins1

I am a liberal I expect my government to do what government is supposed to do, serve the interests of it's citizens,

That is communism, and it can only be accomplished by force, and 'serves" only within the perception of the ones doing the forcing.

Libertarians, Constitutionalists expect their government to leave everybody alone, guard the coast, mint the coins, and provide an incorruptible court for the settlement of contract disputes.


Quite a difference.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to say that Obama wants to turn this country communist. NONE. PERIOD.

Obama: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Obama Radio Interview -- The Civil Rights Movement Failed To Bring About Redistribution Of Wealth | The Minority Report

[Night]

Quote by: soothsayer Yes. taxation is an imposition by force.. whether those taxes ostensibly support foreign campaigns or social engineering domestically, they are unconstitutional. Nothing prevents the presumed "majority" of libtards to effect their social engineering free of theimposition of taxes, especially when supposedly so many think alike anyway.

Don't like taxation? Surrender your citizenship and move to Somalia. Problem solved. Radical right wingers who hate taxes are the dumbest people on earth.

Quote by: soothsayer As far as gay marriage goes, the "gay" agenda is misplaced if it is sincere, but its illogic indicates to me that, at best, they are being played by statists who have an ulterior agenda of extending state control and dependency on as much of the population as possible, by all means possible.

No evidence of this exists. You're paranoid, obviously.

Quote by: soothsayer "normal" heterosexual marriage and "religious" matrimony pre-existed the idea of same-sex marriage, so here, the "gay agenda" is the aggressor on an existing legal and cultural institution.

And slavery pre-existed the idea of racial equality. So what? What a stupid thing to say soothsayer.

Quote by: soothsayer If the intention was real "equality" of all persons (which I, as a libertarian feel it should be) then the campaign should be removal of current special legal recognition of all marriage (for better or worse), not the addition of a new kind, which extends the cause of statism.

Sure. Too bad most conservatives don't feel that way.

Quote by: soothsayer Analyze your statement--- analyze the above concept. What do you mean "screwed us over" ? And what is supposed "to work" ?

Do you have no common sense? Look at Iraq. The deficit. World opinion of America. Etc.

Quote by: soothsayer Your whole approach that you, your beliefs, your concept of government, is supposed to have the power to "do" something... and that we are supposed to be accepting of the consequences. I believe that society should be left to evolve on its own free of manipulations by a minority with the power to influence epople's behavior economically as well as cuturally. (See false money and taxation and "education" ) All extremely powerful forces that should be free of centralized control

Then move to Somalia, buddy. A strong central government is crucial to the success of a powerful and successful world country. Please point out to me a SINGLE powerful successful country in world history who didn't have a strong central government/leadership.

Quote by: soothsayer You've not done your homework. Do I need refer you to past posts your blinders caused you to overlook? Enclave: Brooksley Born's warnings ignored by Clinton, Bush, & Obama at America's peril Community Reinvestment Act | Media Circus http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...4/vmck4-94.pdf Community Reinvestment Act - Overview of the Community Reinvestment Act The Phony Time-Gap Alibi For The Community Reinvestment Act Maybe The Community Reinvestment Act Is A Problem 100 to Blame: The Community Reinvestment Act, Corporate Skyboxes, and More: Bruce Feirstein | Vanity Fair http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0...0FINAL_WEB.pdf FRONTLINE: the warning: interviews: brooksley born | PBS YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae

I do not have the time to read all of that. Do summarize, as everyone else on this forum does, or lose the point.

[Night]

Quote by: soothsayer That is communism,

A government who "serves the people" is communist? My my you have no idea what communism is do you? It is not communism. Sorry.

Quote by: soothsayer and it can only be accomplished by force, and 'serves" only within the perception of the ones doing the forcing.

No one is arguing for communism. Not me. Not lbskins. Not Obama. Only the evil demons in your head.

Quote by: soothsayer Libertarians, Constitutionalists expect their government to leave everybody alone, guard the coast, mint the coins, and provide an incorruptible court for the settlement of contract disputes.

I'm sure they have no conception that a strong central government is necessary to maintaining a successful country.

Quote by: soothsayer Obama: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” Obama Radio Interview -- The Civil Rights Movement Failed To Bring About Redistribution Of Wealth | The Minority Report

Again, I do not have the time to read what I imagine is more right-wing claptrap from your links. Please summarize for everyone.

And Jesus f*ing Christ, soothsayer, prove to me that Obama actually said "I do not believe people should own guns". Please show me EVIDENCE of this, as opposed to your usual right-wing gossip/hearsay.

[soothsayer]

Your posts are evidence of how powerful willful ignorance and delusion can be.

THE UNITED STATES is evidence that a country flourishes in the absence of a "strong central government". That is its founding principle.

Any excess or abuse that you name is the direct result of its people allowing it to deviate from that most basic tenet.






Getting back to the gist of why I created this thread, and to further elucidate the point that distinguishes libtards as comparable to religious fanatics is what your responses have clearly shown:

That you people are the aggressors, you people are on the offensive and that everything you advocate blindly, doggedly, ceaselessly is prediacated upon the control and dominance of others.

"a STRONG central government" is what you keep repeating you demand while denying the recorded voice of your leader saying the same thing !

STRONG thats what you want... in order to do what to whom?


Here's another way the sentient with the masochistic tendencies to have followed this thread
thus far may relate to the point that statists' mentality is akin to those of religious fanatics:

The socialist presumes a position of "knowing" and is driven by the impulse to "correct" and to "save" others.... so perfectly sanctimonious in his desire that he openly states he needs "strength" in order to carry out this "benevolent" (in his mind) crusade upon others...just like the Mormon who knocks on doors, or the Jehovah's Witness wanting to share his salvation. At least they only knock, they don't kick the door down.

To "strong" statists, they subscribe to the notion of
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

You are propbably saying to yourself "YES! He gets it! I'm going to save the world, make it 'successful" (your own word) through my strength and imposition.

Of course, what statists and religious fanatics both fail to understand is that their "callings" presume that the other person wants what it is they are forcing upon them and secondly, that what they are forcing is in any way better than what the recipient of their "care" and designs would have evolved without them.


The constitutionalist or libertarian prescribes to the far less invasive ideal of
"Do NOT unto others that which you would not want done unto you"

See the difference? You can't leave others alone, you crave "strength" and authority and want to "change" others to your worldview.. just like a religious fanatic. He may (in his mind) be driven by a heartfelt desire to do good, but you scorn him and his intrusive efforts upon your PEACE and self-determination while doing the same thing.

Keep your "salvation" to yourselves religious libtards. Its not welcome. Go hold hands around the campfire and chant your MMMn MMMn MMns with all those you can seduce and plan your utopian design for the world... I wish you Godspeed.
Just do it within the framework of not imposing your will onto others who simply want to exercise their right to go about their business.


I dont expect the religious fanatics (er, libtards) to get it. Those reading this who do are chuckling and nodding in agreement.

PEACE. (but you've already told us that's not what you advocate)

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: soothsayer Just look at how posters here blindly overlook the exponential abuses of the current administration compared to the previous one. Its alot like catholics who refuse to acknowledge any occurence of abuses by the clergy... or , even more like libtards, they blind themselves to the glaring abuses preferring to console themselves with the notion that the perceived "kharmic" benefit of their "feel goodism" exceeds the elitism and corruption they choose to overlook in their chosen messiah and his crew.

What you call "glaring abuse" most of us call governing. If you want to lump the continuation of the income tax and the continuation of most federal regulation into the same pile of "abuse" that is ignored, understand that I ignored it in the previous administration for the same reason I ignore it now. I consider it to be the government's job. Why would I complain about it in any administration? I might complain that the fairness of tax code leaves much to be desired, but I do accept the necessity of income taxes and also of federal regulation. You are much more likely to hear me complain that the federal government was too lax in it's enforcement under the previous administration. You have every right to disagree with me on that, but my ideas are winning in the infamous "marketplace of ideas". You hold the minority view. You have presented me with no evidence to make me change my view. I like evidence. I do not ignore it, even if and when it contradicts some long held belief.

Quote by: soothsayer Similarly, they accept higher and higher taxes feeling that their level of "blessings" within the current system will amount to their pay keeping pace with inflation and tax rates, while somehow magically not deteriorating the rest of the economy in the same way that "givers" (whether consciously aware its doctrinally true or not), convince themselves that they will be so increased commensurate with their charity to others. The difference here, of course, that religious tithers are donating freely, whereas libtards, while accepting that their taxes increase (the ones with jobs, that is), primarily advocate such taxes with the belief that in the process they are "sticking it" to those they envy more than they will bear the burden themselves. The great facilitator for most libtards is that they work for the government in some capacity, directly or not, and can expect their pay to keep pace with taxation, actually making real for them what is only a misguided hope on the part of the religious giver.

Most of the liberals I know do not work for the government. I do not work for the government. If my taxes go up, my taxes go up and my take home pay goes down. What I get is better roads, an army that protects my shores, zoning enforcement that prevents my neighbor from manufacturing fireworks in his kitchen, trash pick-up, fire and police protection, my niece and nephews get an education, I get to buy food that I am relatively certain is free from contamination, my community is not ravaged and dirtied by the local coal industry like it was 50 years ago. I could go on, but I'm sure none of that really matters to you. I am not pouring my tax money into a hole. My taxes pay for services that I and the majority of people in this country willingly pay for. You speak as if the IRS has to arrest millions of Americans every year, breaking down the doors of millions of homes. That simply is not the case. So, my money is not "tithed" with only the hope of some future reward. I see the benefits every day. It's not much different that paying to see a movie. I pay my fee, they project the movie and allow me a seat in the theater. I pay my taxes, my roads are paved, soldiers are paid, policemen and teachers are paid, and they provide me with the services I pay for. I like the arrangement, thank you very much. Most people like the arrangement.

Quote by: soothsayer Really? "War on Poverty" ring a bell to you? You can drag out all the misleading false or skewed statistics all you want.... There are more people now, at a greater proportion of the total population dependent upon govt services than ever before... and precisely because such systems exist and affect people's behavior toward irresponsibility.

And, the system works for the most part. The statistics aren't flawed or skewed. Less people exist in a state of poverty now than did before the advent of the "war on poverty". It simply is true. Like it or not, true is true.

Quote by: soothsayer Your idea of history is at best incomplete and inaccurate, but by your posts, it indicates you have not delved at all into the politicized pro-statist version you were fed in school, the popular culture and newsmedia.

You seem to confuse this The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net with this The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. My idea of history involves actual history and not some dogmatic ideal. And trust me when I tell you, if my knowledge of history was limited to what a school told me, I'd be more likely to agree with you. I was educated and reared in the great state of South Carolina. My education could not have been less liberal. My ideas come from a synthesis of various disciplines. I read political histories, religious comparative works, philosophical histories, sociological and anthropological works. What I don't read are dogmatic screeds.

Quote by: soothsayer Its not held accountable at all.. least of all by the statists themselves! Look at my recent posts... Every single criticism of the Bush administrtion that the press and academia have repeated over and over again such as "War Monger" "Baby Killer" "Corporatist" "War contract beneficiary" "Blood for Oil" etc etc etc have been perpetrated exponentially more already in the short time the current administration has been in office, and when pointed out, the press as well as the sycophants posting here are conspicuously mute. That's blind fanatical devotion. Sorry.

So, explain to me how the Obama administration has exponentially increased any of those things. I am all ears. I know he has funded the stimulus and increased deficit spending, so you can say he has exponentially increased the public debt, but I have seen no evidence at all that he has done anything other than refuse to bow to pressure from those even more liberal than I and simply withdraw from the mess his predecessor left in Iraq and Afghanistan.