Saturday, June 02, 2007

Here is a recent article on Socialist….err…Democratic front-runner Comrade Hillary Clinton and her economic vision for America.

“it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity”

Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better himself.

On the other side of the Presidential race, Rudy Guiliani became the latest victim of the radical Left and their shout-down tactics when a group of protestors interrupted his campaign stop, accusing him of being a “criminal of 9/11”. According to them, Rudy knew what no one else on the planet knew (not even the attackers), that both towers were going to collapse and yet he insisted on continuing the rescue efforts, sending hundreds of firefighters and police officers to their deaths. That’s what these lunatics are claiming. Despicable.

So here are examples of today's modern-day Left. Their leader is advocating for socialism, and their foot soldiers are shouting down their political opponents.

Meanwhile, John Edwards charges UC-Davis $55,000 for a speech. The title of this costly speech: "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America.” This article speaks for itself. I guess there is no moral issue in charging college students $31 a head to hear you speak about poverty while you're living in a 28,000 square foot estate and paying $500 for a haircut. There appears to be no limits in Edwards’ lack of shame. And I'm wondering just who the hell would vote for this guy. He's clearly going for the Amway target audience.


Allisoni Balloni said...

I am not able to understand the right-wing obsession with Edwards and how much he pays to get his hair cut. If you were rich, would you just not spend money in order to avoid others criticizing you for it? Being wealthy does not mean that he is somehow not allowed to be aware of or advocate for those who do live in poverty. That is something those on the right have yet to realize--being better off than your neighbor doesn't mean that you shouldn't still have a moral obligation to help them.

John Washburn said...

THe problem, Allisoni, is the hypocrisy of it all. The Left has this inner burning hatred of anyone with money, unless that person with money is running on the Democrat ticket, then he/she is a "champion for the poor". What has Edwards EVER done for the poor? Even his own neighbors hate him. He's built a career with con tactics, and you seem to be falling for it like everyone else.

The fact is, the Right is more likely to donate to charity, and in larger amounts than the Left. But that never gets mentioned when you talk about champions for the poor. Instead, you blow that off and focus on your socialist policies.

Here's a multiple choice question: Who's better off? A) America's poor B) China's poor C) Cuba's poor D) North Korea's poor.

THe answer: Socialism is a FAILURE! And anyone, including Edwards and Clinton, who favor it should spend some time in a socialist nation before advocating this kind of government.

Anonymous said...

Ok, both of you have a point. I don't care how rich or poor Edwards is, but I sort of get what John is saying. I mean Edwards does propose taxing the rich, and he is rich, so there's irony.

Anyway, you all know my position on welfare. Abolish it. Then cut taxes. Everyone wins. The rich and middle, because they aren't paying for the non-workers, and the poor, who won't have to pay high taxes. Problem solved, and with less government too.

Allisoni Balloni said...

The even bigger hypocrisy is how unwilling the Christian right is to actually be Christian for once and reach out to the poor. It's really amazing how much attention is paid to issues like homosexuality, because it is mentioned once in the bible, in comparison to how little attention is paid to charity and helping you neighbor, which is basically Jesus' main focus. It doesn't MATTER how wealthy a person is if they use it productively and remain compassionate towards others. I am a liberal and I do not hate anyone with money until they proclaim or act as if they are a better person because of it.

Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with helping the poor. There is something wrong with using the government to help the poor, and there is most certainly something wrong with forcing people to help the poor. When you're forced, or are forcing people, to help is it still a good deed? Or is it just more hypocrisy?

I do agree that the Christian right are hypocrites when it comes to the gay marriage issue. The way I see it, the government can't tell the churches not to marry gay people. However, I am consist ant. I also believe that the government shouldn't force people to give to the poor if they don't want to. Don't you think Democrats are also inconsistent, since they want to leave gays alone but force the rich to help the poor against their will?
I know you don't hate people with money, but why do you support progressive taxation? Progressive taxation is punishing the rich. If you don't hate them, why do you support punishing them? What crime did they commit?

The truth is that while you don't hate them, the philosophy handed to you by the Democratic Party does contain elements of hate towards the rich, and that's just how it is. And it is hypocritical, just as the Republican stance against gay marriage that you cite is also hypocritical.

Both sides have hypocrisy. Both you and John are part of a hypocritical party, and this whole argument makes no sense because you're both unwilling to admit that your respective leaders are, in fact, hypocrites.

John Washburn said...

This link is from a philanthropy expert based on credible social data.

"In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals."

Here is a link about charity donation statistics done by 20/20

And more of the same from RCP

So, Allisoni, you can either leave your apology to the "Christian right" here or you can continue guzzling your Kool aid.

Robert, for the record, I AM NOT a republican, nor do I favor their political leaders. I think ALL politicians are liars and con-men. I have no problem with homosexuals having sex with each other, but they are not entitled to compare themselves to the civil rights movement. And when did I ever say that the gov't should tell the churches who to marry?

My morals are Biblically based. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about it, and I don't think I've said or done anything hypocritical on this blog. My values are consistent.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. I was referring to the "Religious Right" actually, not yourself. I should have been more clear. To reiterate my basic points:

John Edwards and the Democrats are indeed hypocrites.

The Religious Right, as Allisoni pointed out, are also hypocrites.

Politicians are hypocrites.

You both have valid points as I see it.

None of those points are meant to directly relate to each other. i.e. you aren't a hypocrite, but the politicians are.

The only thing I said that was false was the assumption that you were a Republican, and for that I apologize. The rest was just poor or potentially misleading word choice on my part.