DISQUS

Eric James · 8 months ago

I think its shopped. Those arrows and accompanying text seems unnatural.

MoFaux · 8 months ago

I'm not convinced.

Jeff · 8 months ago

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Source: http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_the_life_of_j...

Michael · 8 months ago

You are an idiot. It's nice that you like having your hand held, though. But you're right. The world would be total chaos without Big Brother regulating every aspect of our lives. You know why? Because people like you are too fucking lazy to do anything for yourself.

John · 8 months ago

You're the idiot. If we lived in the world you jack off to each night, we'd have an average life-span of 40. Kill yourself.

Tacoman · 8 months ago

John: I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Jake · 8 months ago

Im glad civilized debate is still alive and well in this country.

smarty · 8 months ago

your are idiod!

Claudius Whalefist VII · 8 months ago

nuh my maw says your is idiod and i half to go now butt may be is you free later you are come over and play she dosent like mean peepole butt she says to make friends and you real lee dont sound dumb i just poke my funs to your words butt me know how smart are we like a very good team ok bye for today

Jr Accountant · 8 months ago

Sign me up

scott · 8 months ago

ahahaha

meh. · 8 months ago

we'd all be better off with an average lifespan of 40. we all breed too much. natural selection is a beautiful thing.

Ray · 8 months ago

My apinion is grate.

Will · 5 months ago

Better a corpse at 40 than a slave at 65.

RavenRaving · 8 months ago

I would love to see you handle just one aspect of your existence without government help. Here's an example. Tell me how you would ensure the food, drugs, toys, carpet, etc you brought into your house wasn't loaded with bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, and so on.

I know the FDA has been gutted, and it's almost like it doesn't exist, but lets say it doesn't and we are now 10 years down the road. Do you have a private lab in your basement? And how many hours a day does it take you to check just your DINNER, for crying out loud?

JT · 8 months ago

Raven I understand you point. I feel like a lot of these argument are being fought like it's black and white.

The idea of regulating food sanitation is important. And FDA does some good job at it. However, it bugs me when certain things are regulated but other things are not for no scientific reason what so ever. This makes me questioning if there's special interest involve, which is usually the case. (Pasteurized milk for example.)

De-centralization does not mean no regulation. Power to the people does not mean no leadership. It just mean we the people will regulate amongst ourselves. A group of humans will instinctively form social contract. That has existed long before centralized government and it worked very well.

Sure, there are shortcoming of this model, such as inter-group warfare. Yet, having centralized government didn't really eliminate that either. It has only widen the scale. Now more than ever, we have the technology (communication and transportation) to enable groups of people to exist peacefully. Of course, the change will come gradually. It's too risky to suddenly abandon the centralized system. However, it's a good time to consider other options.

Remember, no system works forever. The best we can do is to anticipate the change, as suppose to hold on to the past.

Pirlo · 8 months ago

Sivil warfare sounds like more than a slight shortcoming. It sounds more like HOLY FUCK LET'S AVOID THIS AT ANY COST! Look, it's not like someone or something is not going to take the place of the sentralized government if it ever were disbanded. Most likely a despot. Would you prefer a king? Where there is a power vacuum, it will be filled. So your argument is invalid, because it asumes that IF we had local government only, everybody would be satisfied and live happily, and no man, woman, corporation or entity would ever be willing to risk life and everything else to try to seize absolute power and succeed. A sentralized government, is also a protection. It's basically people finding out after millenia of feudalism, monarchy, and other more local forms of government, that we need representatives of us, the people, in every position of power - not as mere negotiators with power, a position which your local mayor would soon enough find himself in, when he wants to barter with the overlords that now "protect" your city by having an army surround it. Hence, we accept the limits our government puts on us, and selebrate the freedoms it gives us. If you think you would be more free with the dismantlement of a democratically elected sentral government, you sir, are an idiot.

James · 8 months ago

You're an idiot. I as a Republican don't want absence of centralized government. I understand that with no powers that be someone or something would instate itself as ruler. I want someone in charge who will look after my centralized government making sure no one rises to power in a non-democratic manner. I want someone in charge who will leave me alone otherwise. The position of centralized government should not take away from my local government but should add to it.

Isaac · 8 months ago

State governments are only a different form of centralized power, aren't they? Only with a different center?

Furthermore, have any of the claims you've made come to fruition? Also, those who rise to power in a non-democratic way are called bureaucrats, bankers and stockbrokers--in short, those who claim power non-democratically are those who claim the power of the market.

"Someone in charge who will leave me alone"? Why be in charge if you leave those who you lead alone? Do you even know what the purpose of a government is?

Here me out · 8 months ago

One problem, with a de-centralized system at least under Bush, is that the FDA in recent years was basically self-regulated, and yet we had the highest rate of contaminated foods because of it. The peanut scare, a plant in Atlanta had an "A" rating and yet employees claim that there were rats and rat droppings littered through out the plant.

Isaac K · 7 months ago

... it's a question of "who watches the watchmen?". Your regulatory boards need to operate transparently, and there needs to be a coarse of redress. If that regulatory board is government or not is irrelevant to it's effectiveness; though a government agency that is tasked with oversight is much more likely to still hold authority and command respect even when they are found to be failures in there oversight responsibility's, whereas a non-government agency will lose credibility and people will instead refer to other sources for information.

Ozzy · 8 months ago

I'LL SHOW YOU HEAVY METAL!!!!!!!!! WAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!

DC · 8 months ago

Yeah, the current system (which apparently is only in place because of liberals) is doing a FANTASTIC job of ensuring that food, drugs, toys etc don't contain bacteria, viruses or heavy metals.


Mattel only had to recall a few million of their toys because someone found out they contain lead paint, AFTER they were already marketed, produced, packaged, shipped, delivered and purchased by consumers.

The drugs that are produced take so long to get approved (and apparently deemed safe) that by the time they hit the market, the patent has expired and anyone can produce the drug. Seems like a system like that would remove the incentive to produce new and better products...

Countless food products have been recalled/removed recently because they were found to contain bacteria AFTER people got sick!


I guess we need to depend more on the government to do everything for us... It sure makes me feel safer.

Stagger · 8 months ago

Actually, it would do a good job of it, and did in the past, until their funds got cut, year after year by republicans.

You can't gut the system and then say 'But look, it doesn't work'

Socialist working American · 7 months ago

Republicans don't want smaller government. That is just the shill to draw in the rubes and suckers. What they want is a very expensive "crippled" government that leaves their cronies alone to do their larceny while still shoveling the maximum amount of funding to corporations via "privatization". Bush's war was the most expensive ever waged and it was mostly supplied and outfitted by corporations. Much of the soldier's clothing and equipment is tagged "made in China" and private companies supply everything, right down to the water and laundry.

If one considered the land mass and population controlled by the US military as a country it would represent either the fifth or sixth largest in the world.. The US military budget also equals the budgets of all other countries combined. This is major business and it isn't going to shrink voluntarily or magically go away. President Eisenhower warned us not to let this monster get too big, but we didn't listen. I think that a US President would now be no real threat to this institution. The power behind the throne makes and assassinates rulers all the time to perpetuate the madness.

Bowen · 7 months ago

Michael, you are retarded. Your argument is akin to those of the southern right wing, who claim to be the most patriotic of all, but LOVE their confederate flag. You claim to be an American yet you really stand against everything America was ACTUALLY founded on; things like personal freedoms, checks and balances, and tax-based, government sponsored programs such as social security and highway cleanups. Let's take away EVERYTHING good politicians have fought for that you take FULL advantage of daily, and see where you stand. Ready? Ok, might wanna drink your milk, cause your fridge isn't gonna work without electricity. Oh, and the water? Not so good anymore. And, uh, might wanna put all your money in cash, cause the banks are no longer regulated and social security hath disappeared. Don't drive either, I doubt your car is built very well, what with the lack of standards in the auto industry. I FUCKING HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU GOD DAMN IT PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE YOU STUPID, IGNORANT, FOX NEWS-WATCHING HILLBILLY RETARD.

chkno · 8 months ago

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. Joe is able to hear the host clearly and without interference because some liberal legislator created overbearing government regulation and licencing of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Jono · 8 months ago

The same legislators also argue for "equal time" laws that require both sides of every debate to be equally represented, as if such a thing could be measured out and regulated. This is to ensure that Joe is well educated on both sides of every topic, because he is easily influenced by things he hears on the radio and too dumb to to make decisions in life based on anything outside of what he gets from public media. It is also thanks to the regulation of radio and tv broadcasts that viewer content is appropriate and clean, and those who attempt to broadcast unregulated by the FCC are punished accordingly, because Jim's mind, and the minds of his family, are too feeble to handle anything which might result from a *gasp* unregulated medium.

It is the hopes of some that these same laws will be applied to "clean up" the internet, to ensure that Jim and his family's delicate minds are not overburdened by any disturbing or questionable information that may negatively affect their minds, and make them a possible danger to society or themselves.

Xian · 7 months ago

There is no talk about reinstating the fairness doctrine. To be fair, there was one person, but she was a state level legislator. If you got your news from more than two sources, you would know that "reinstating the fairness doctrine" is a hilariously transparent scare tactic. The nice thing about it though is that I can always spot a Limbaugh listener because of it, since he's pretty much the only person talking (yelling) about it.
The fairness doctrine made some sense when radio was the only thing around, but now we have cable, satellite, and internet as well as broadcast varieties of radio and TV.

Jacob · 8 months ago

Joe turns on the radio and hears nothing because the liberal government brought back the fairness doctrine, and forced the conservative talk shows off the air. So he drives in silence instead. He gets home and goes on the internet, but cannot access his favorite sites because the fairness doctrine enabled the liberal government to create a more fair, regulated, censored viewpoint.


That is just the start, whats next?

Xian · 7 months ago

Oh yeah, and the fairness doctrine only applied to radio. Jesus people, do you not read about things you're willing to fight valiantly? I bet if Limbaugh and Hannity told you that a Democrat was a closet unicorn, you'd believe it.

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

If the government had not stepped in and mandated that all radios work in a particular way (by using a subset of the spectrum to define a "channel" or "station") then, there would have been utter chaos and no one would be able to communicate using radio waves. Right? Well, wrong. There are plenty of schemes that do not rely on any kind of cooperation between different transmitters. Some are actually in use now as a means to make data transmission more reliable (spread spectrum.)

The bottom line is that since the discovery of radio there has always been a huge amount of money to be earned by providing a clear, reliable signal to receivers. If the FCC hadn't stepped in (with the threat of throwing people in jail for building certain types of radios. Think about it...jail time for building a transmitter) broadcasters would have worked something out. I'm sorry, I can't prove that to you. My imagination can't match that of thousands of engineers working over decades to find the best possible solution.

Instead, what the FCC has done is inhibit innovation. There's no need to find a creative solution to the problem. In fact, finding a creative solution could lead to jail time. Meanwhile, they've been SELLING RF. That's no different from selling visible light. How did they acquire this right in the first place? Oh yes, they have guns, how easily I forget.

One hundred-some years later there are many solutions to the problem. Imagine if engineers had to solve the problem at the turn of the last century. It's not too hard to imagine something like spread-spectrum digital radio making its appearance sometime in the 1930s. Instead we've had exactly the same radio technology since the 1910s!

I'm sorry you lack the imagination to see this world that never was. I'm sorry that there are so many people like you who think that the solution to so many of life's problems is to corral everyone into accepting the first, and least imaginative solution to every problem that comes along under threat of bodily harm.

Chelle · 8 months ago

Actually, there is a perfect example of the market driving competitors to work out compatibility issues. I'm typing on one now. Apples and PCs could not communicate with each other for most of their early years. the government didn't force the two to find a way to become compatible. They did it out of necessity. The creative world preferred Macs...the business world preferred PCs...but they needed to communicate with each other on a compatible system.

And yes...the FCC has done a great deal of damage to innovation and public opinion. They allowed media conglomerates to operate multiple stations in a single area. When this happened, fewer independent stations could survive, so fewer options were presented to the public. This was actually an attempt to lighten government control, but it effectively limited the variety we once enjoyed on the airways. It suited the media world just fine. They now get to decide what political opinions we hear and what music we listen to. Thank God for the internet and NPR, or my musical tastes would be limited to the handful of musical genres that are presented on the Top40 station and the political opinions of the talking heads on the handful of news stations that claim to be "fair and balanced" but give me nothing more than the party line.

Oh, and can you all stop calling each other idiots? Since when, in this great country of ours, did it become fashionable to denigrate the opinions of others just because we don't share those opinions? The unwillingness to listen to the other side of the argument is our greatest failure. We all have the ability to learn from each other when we read each other's ideas with an open mind.

Socialist working American · 7 months ago

There was no "attempt to lighten government control". There was an attempt to make sure that the biggest supplier didn't have to worry about competition and the "maverick" was smack in the middle of it. Government can work for the people in providing services too broad based and expensive to be affordable or logistically feasible if it isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.

You libertarian types that have been conned into jumping on the Republican bandwagon are the biggest rubes yet. Do you really think that massive global corporations are going to just roll over and allow you to gut their source of funding and protection? A "real" libertarian, small government President would have a life expectancy of about a week.

Jason · 8 months ago

First after reading your little story here, you should realize it is the FDIC which protects Joe's money. The FSLIC was created to insure Savings and Loans deposits but became insolvent after two bailouts in the 80's. Subsequently in 1989 it was abolished, and the duty fell to the FDIC which was originally created to insure corporate banks. Second is the simple observation, your story does not address the issue in the picture. Simply put the picture calls for "NO Taxes" which as the photoshopper points out, it would be impossible to fund the necessary things in our daily lives. Like streets, lights, sidewalks, ect... On the other hand even if state and local taxes were allowed, and federal taxes were abolished, or even diminished then you would have some money for street lights. but no moeny for highways.. Or even more to the point if we cut Federal Taxes,.. How the Hell are you supposed to fund the DEFENSE the protesters are lobbying to keep?

Socialist working American · 7 months ago

Once you buy into the proposition that lower taxes create more revenue then it is just an extension of that logic to assume that if there were no taxes government would be rolling in money. Get yourself one of those Republican calculators at WalMart and do the math.

Andrew · 8 months ago

Your assumptions are that guys like Edison, Tesla, and Franklin had nothing to do with the discovery & uses of and for electricity, that they were liberals (they definitely were not), and that only through taxes can we solve our problems. You believe that Capitalism is evil, politicians are good, and that before liberals came along we didn't know how to do anything. You definitely need to brush up on your history. Cute story though, too bad it's just very unoriginal - just feels like a cop out with everyone else putting their own raw thoughts on here. Makes a big statement. Yeah, you definitely need to read some history. Here is a good start:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=243&type=0&seq...

This will tell you all about how and when the government came into the picture during the New Deal and squashed private electricity companies (illegally and unconstitutionally) and it is all absolutely true and well documented. As a matter of fact, big government is the problem. We cannot afford the one we have now, and they insist on becoming larger. My own personal views are laid out here at SelfRelianceManifesto.com - if you are truly interested in getting someone else's humble, well-documented opinion. God love you brother. Please look closer.

Alex · 8 months ago

Actually, those men were quite liberal for their time. Our country was founded by men who wanted to move forward and create new laws, a new way of government, and, of course, a new country. Rebelling is quite often a sign of wisdom. Many great philosophers, such as Socrates, were put to death for their words of wisdom. How do we see those "liberal-minded" men and women throughout history? We see them as heroes and geniuses, as they should be.

Isaac K · 7 months ago

I don't know what the political leanings of Edison or Tesla where, however Ben Franklin was avidly in favor of individual liberty. And rebelling does not indicate wisdom, it's frequently the mark of an adolescent.

Jaye · 7 months ago

I'm really tired of liberal being a negative thing.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

lib·er·al
(lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Mike · 7 months ago

I'm confused, which liberals were it that fought to create the FDA? Theodore Roosevelt signed it into existence, granted you could argue that Upton Sinclair and his journalism, represented in The Jungle were responsible for this...you'd be partially right. Of course, if you want to claim this Liberal, you would also have to claim that Stalin, Hitler and Lenin were all in that part of "liberals", given that Sinclair was a Socialist, going so far as to even run on the Socialist ticket a few times in his life for political office here.

And, while we are at it, let's look at Social Security that you claim liberals gave us. If in this case, by "liberals" you mean, FDR, then my friend, you should probably do some homework. While FDR signed into existence the Social Security Act, he prohibited women and minorities from taking part in it. He said that it encouraged people to retire, thus letting younger workers take their place. True? Maybe, but still a wash as far as job creation would be concerned, 1 = 1 regardless of who is doing it. While not my view, would not paying the younger works to educate themselves, to travel the world, experience culture, learn a foreign language, read a classic work of literature, or take a course in logic allow of the same, if not more job creation? This is getting away from my original point however, for that I apologize, the jist of it being this, that until Dwight Eisenhower took office from Truman (another liberal accomplishment...well done), social security was generally blamed as the cause for at least one recession and a huge financial burden after that.

My last point is this, let's hope that Joe isn't a minority, because if that's the case then "some liberal" is also the reason that his ancestors were 1) kept in slavery, 2) experienced internment camps, or 3) found themselves experiencing a holocaust on unprecedented levels. This, of course, depends on his race and how inclusive you want "liberal" to be.

As a closing note, non of this is to say that liberalism is bad, but neither is conservatism. Quit pointing the finger, and looking at titles of our ancestors. I realize this is part of human nature to pick up on patterns and to propagate them. We will always do this, but basing an argument like this over something as ridiculous as "liberal" & "conservative" to try and sway people to vote along side of you is self-destructive, look at Rome, let's not mire ourselves down in pointless party banter, ignoring what is happening around us. Also, support your opinions with better facts, man!

I apologize for any typos, I was in a hurry, but felt the need to respond to John's comment.

Isaac K · 7 months ago

at the time of Abe Lincolns election, the Democrats where the "conservative" party and the Republicans where the "liberal" party...... Jefferson, a Democrat (though the party was called something else at the time) was opposed to slavery.....

mburke43 · 7 months ago

Isaac, what would you be basing that assertion off of? The Republican Party began on the motto of "free labor, free land, free men" focusing on lower taxes, promotion of business and, almost immediately were opposed to the league of nations....this sounds generally like the Republican Party of today, but please explain why the Democrats were the "conservative" party and the Republicans the "liberal" party.

John · 6 months ago

You do realize that republicans ended slavery?

Jim · 6 months ago

So liberals did all that? Please provide sources. My guess is that you are a typical liberal believing what you want instead of what is real.

ceruleanbill · 8 months ago

Not all conservatives are bad, stupid, or wrong. It just SEEMS that way, sometimes.

nigger · 8 months ago

i came

Julie B. · 8 months ago

Brilliant Jeff. I wish everyone would take a second and look at it that way.

Gleno · 8 months ago

ZOMG! What a bunch of arrogant assholes! Are you serious!? LIBERALS fought for all those things?? I don't think so! It's the liberals who fought to prevent the medical company from building their facility, from testing their products on labrats, and who then tried to tax the company into oblivion! Don't even DARE try to take credit for the things you do! Without Obammunists in this country, people would have more and have to pay less to get it!

Ian · 8 months ago

Wait, Really? "Don't even DARE try to take credit for the things you do!" Direct quote. I guess if Obamamunists start to bring us out of this recession, we should give credit to the Conservatives, right?

But neither side seems to provide any evidence for their claims, which seems to be characteristic of our political beliefs. We believe what we believe because we were indoctrinated by our parents, and by our media of choice. When was the last time you stopped to look, from a historical and objective perspective, at the liberal and conservative policies put into effect by our government? Could your emotional attachment be clouding your judgement?

Socialist working American · 7 months ago

You forgot one small word in your rant that makes all the difference. Without Obammunists in this country "SOME" people would have more and have to pay less to get it. Everyone else would be their minions and wage slaves with no hope of obtaining a higher position after one generation of compound interest for the "chosen".

madhypnotis · 8 months ago

Interesting... Ive looked as closely as I can... and I swear... I can say for sure they are all conservatives... but after reading what cerulean said..I can see that he is stupid..... sometimes. I know for a fact some libs were holding signs at protests... It aint political leaning... its a trillion in bailout that is coming from somewhere... and... follow the money...it sure aint going to where it should be....

Fred · 8 months ago

Must be nice to be a liberal, you get to make up funny stories like Jeff and pass it off as the truth.

fred is a fag · 8 months ago

haha. your bush ruined the country.

Fred · 8 months ago

Never voted for Bush, so don't know how that makes him mine

anthony · 8 months ago

Care to counter those "lies"? Keep in mind that Democrats are not always mean liberals, and Republicans aren't always conservatives

drinking standards, probably standardized by the EPA. EPA as created by Pres. Richard Nixon (R) who "believed in using government wisely to benefit all, supporting the idea of practical liberalism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Seco...

benefits -> liberal union members, duh.

ingredients, begun with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, signed by FDR (D). He was obviously a liberal progressive. He created many federal programs (New Deal) to pull the US out of the Great Depression.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/sect...

Public transportation: Began with things like the Pacific Railway Acts (First Intercontinental Railroad, what?), signed in by Abe Lincoln (R). The Republicans were the progressive party of the 1860s. He opposed slavery and gave free blacks the vote. He pushed for quick Reconstruction of the South after the war.
Couldn't find anything specifically pertaining to subways, but in 2008, "The Democratic-led Congress is moving America in a New Direction for Energy Independence—working for consumers to lower gas prices, make America more secure, create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, and reduce global warming [with the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act]."
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0229

You know, i could go on

Richard · 8 months ago

Nope, Fred is just another idiot with no support for any of this retarded "musings."

Brooke · 8 months ago

The reality here is that the Republican party and the current democratic party were actually on opposite sides of the fence about... 80 years ago. About the time of FDR, they switched. The ideals of the currect democratic party were held by the republican party and vice versa. So, the post is correct in saying Liberals (and thank you for reminding us there that in the US there is no such thing as true bi-partisanship).

Jacob · 8 months ago

I thought it was pretty well understood by now that world war II pulled the US out of the Great Depression. Although the new deal did stop economic contraction, it didn't do much in terms of restoring the economy to a healthy state. If fact, in 1937 there was another mini depression, and the unemployment rate again started to rise. Many argue that the new deal only extended the great depression. It wasn't until we entered the war that factories were given contracts, brought back into production, and people went back to work.

Now, our government wants to give it another go. Hmmm... i wonder how it will turn out.

Xian · 7 months ago

Public spending. You can use it to buy school books or buy bombs, pay people to build bridges or to shoot at other people. Think about it. If the argument is that WWII got us out of the depression, then the argument is that MASSIVE public spending spurs growth. Which it does. Are you surprised to learn you're "liberal"? BTW, 1937's mini depression can be connected to FDR's scaling back of New Deal programs at the urging of his big business supporters. After this he went ahead with even more ambitious programs, which meant more people had government jobs, meaning more people had money to spend on stuff, which meant business owners could sell more products and afford to hire more people. WWII just did this faster while killing off a lot of people who would have been looking for work and depressing the job market.

Brad · 8 months ago

Jeff, and the others, it seems, have forgotten that Democrats weren't always the liberal party in America. That's a title a party gets once they've been in power for a long time and have been able to turn the politics of the nation into the way you want them to be; then you don't want them to change, and suddenly you're conservative. I'd say old Abe made a pretty liberal move when he vowed to free the slaves in the South.

Sky · 8 months ago

Thats why Jeff said liberals, not Democrats.

Prohibitoid · 8 months ago

Also, people CHANGE. Didnt someone recently recall for the public at large that change is often good...? Everyone makes mistakes, period.

James · 8 months ago

Local property taxes pay for all of those things, not federal income taxes.

elwaaay · 8 months ago

The ladies sign says "ZERO TAXES" which includes State Property & Sales Tax as well as Federal Income Tax. They are both "taxes" without which, none of those items would be in the picture. Now you may hold to the theory that private enterprise could have done a better job at putting those items in the picture quicker, and or cheaper.... but that is a totally different discussion.

JayZ · 8 months ago

No, I am pretty sure she is talking about Federal Taxes. Most of the anti-tax nuts agree that local and State level taxes are necessary and lawful since they are in the realm of the Constitution which grants the power to each State to Govern itself. The real point in question most of the time is the illegality of the ability of the Federal Government to tax the income of the population. Basically, the 16th Amendment isn't valid.

Sometimes a sign is a representation and not a direct statement. You know, there are a lot of words to use and all and so few pixels available on that poster board. Though, if you educated yourself with their cause you might realize what they mean when they say Zero Taxes.

fsticfrankie · 8 months ago

Who started the war(s)? The who ran up the deficit to pay for these wars? It sure wasn't a liberal Democrat in the White House
advocating continued spending that only benefited the industrial war machine. Oh....that's right...it was the Republican Party in
control of the Senate and the House.

Isaac K · 7 months ago

yea, who bombed Yugoslavia cause he just couldn't admit he got a fucking blow job......

polluter1 · 8 months ago

You guys are all a bunch of tools! While you are jumping from one foot to the next, the real party, the corpocracy is getting over on all of us. Ds and Rs , just arguing the same side of the coin just trying to dress it up different and keep us fighting amongst ourselves.

Reus · 8 months ago

Sheesh Cant we just say that both parties have done some good and some wrong and stop bitching about it ?

greg · 8 months ago

I think it's funny that you think that federal income taxes were spent on any of those things. Do you realize that these people are protesting the federal government? I imagine that the people in the picture have a pretty good idea of how local infrastructures are financed.

anthony · 8 months ago

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, for one.

Nikolai · 8 months ago

"I imagine that the people in the picture have a pretty good idea of how local infrastructures are financed." WTF??? You're kidding, right? I challenge you to locate one of these teabagging parties and ask that of 3 or 4 folks, they won't know SQUAT

greg · 8 months ago

I commented before reading the other comments and I have to say that I hear intelligent arguments from both sides every day but polluter 1 is right about what is really happening. As long as the government can keep us divided into two sides and convince us that everything our side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong and evil we will keep getting screwed.

Alabama · 8 months ago

For all the good bi-partisan politics does, I'm really tired of the supporters from both sides being transformed into frothing, hateful ass-hats.

We gotta be smarter than the media, guys, not become their talking-heads.

greg · 8 months ago

amen

spiffyjumper · 8 months ago

This discussion should be properly labeled...this is about Liberalism and Conservatism, which are modes of thought, ideals, or philosophies...it is not about Democrats and Republicans, which are parties.
A Republican (Abraham Lincoln) freed the slaves, and a Republican (Dwight Eisenhower) brought us a transportation network, the Interstate Highway System, that created cheaper shipping through interstate trucking, and efficient mobility for the individual, both of which contributed significantly to the way of life from which most of us consumers benefit.
On the other hand, a Democrat kept us mired in Vietnam (Lyndon Johnson) ,and a Democrat (Bill Clinton) brought us NAFTA and GATT.

Reg · 8 months ago

Just for the record.... Abe didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1963 only ended slavery in the territories and the south....it did not abolish slavery. The loyal border states could continue to hold slaves. It was a start... but Lincoln was out to preserve the Union...even at the cost of allowing slavery to exist. Just for purists....

As to this 'argument' - I want to hear ONE tea party participant explain just WHICH tax he or she is protesting. These poor souls will all benefit from the new tax schedule....unless they're all that small percent of the wealthy in drag. The colonists in Boston were protesting taxation without representation.....taxation by a tyrant king. Again for the record, Obama was elected ....not coronated....and this whole staged nonsense was theater of the absurd and the uninformed. These people are not Republicans or Libertarians....they are FOX and Rush followeres.

JayZ · 8 months ago

Federal Income Tax and Payroll Tax.

Zero Fed Income Tax means no need for tax schedules, and no citizen involvement with the IRS. Tax revenue would need to be made up by VAT type sales taxes/higher import taxes, tariffs...etc.

The Flat Tax people vote for the VAT type Federal sales tax on all goods and services that are not consumable and are new (used items and consumables are tax free).

Zero Tax people normally vote for local and State level taxes and want the Fed to be fiscally responsible by paying for itself without taxing the population.

Isaac K · 7 months ago

English Parliament was responsible for leveling taxes against the colony's, not King George III.

Jim · 8 months ago

Those things are all paid by state and/or local taxes. Theyre clearly not against those things, one of the signs even says "cut taxes, not defense." Theyre protesting against federal taxes, not the ones that pay for all of those things ya jackoff. Either way, I dont agree with the people in the picture, but you should maybe get ur shit straight.

Alex Kessler · 8 months ago

Is it truly possible to cut taxes and not defense? Or am I confused on where the pentagon's funding comes from...

Mark Johnson · 8 months ago

are you shitting me you fucking moron?

that stuff accounts for about 1% of taxpayer dollars.

Campbell · 8 months ago

Taxes aren't the only income a government has. Tariffs, import/export fees, internal product taxes, and voluntary government bonds were all the income our government had before 1913. There is a lot of money there for a reasonable sized government without resorting to an income tax. In fact, if we cut the US government down to the size it was in 1996, we could eliminate the income tax entirely. Do you honestly believe that the government of 1996 was "too small"? Is it "crazy" to want our government shrunk to that size?

Jake · 8 months ago

just because there happens to be signs doesn't mean they want them. That's like saying the kids who died protesting in tienanmen square were hypocrits because they went to colleges funded by the state.

You use what you have, that doen't mean you think its worth it.

dan · 8 months ago

I prefer the terms Progressives and Regressive. It is really simple. Progressive's want to move Human Kind forward, improve the state of world affairs, the quality of life, you get the picture. Regressive's want to take us back to the dark ages where people believed that demons caused illness and that everyone was a serf of peasant to some lord or king.
When you look at the world in terms of moving forward or backwards, it really doesn't matter what political party someone is involved with. They are either for progress or against it.

Anarkia · 8 months ago

Oh boy, they just let anybody post on here don't they? I'm not even one of these "Regressives" and I think is the dumbest world view I've yet seen on the internet.

dan · 8 months ago

Oh boy, Duly noted. One regressive dumb ass. So the question is basically, make the world a better place, or pull us back to the dark ages. Your vote, noted. No penicillin for you. turn your car in at the DMV and get your ass into a mud hut out in the middle of the boonies. Don't forget to hunt with a sharp stick.

mark · 8 months ago

Your polarizing bullshit is no different than liberal and conservative. Maybe worse. We are fucked so long as people keep thinking that their neighbor is their enemy.

eureka!! · 8 months ago

ive got a simple solution, move out of the country :D

Jimma · 8 months ago

Believe me, if anywhere in the world was any better, I'd go there. Now wtf kind of solution is that? Well, I guess it is pretty easy to imagine someone enjoying having big brother tax them to fund things they have no interest in and telling them how to live their life and, of course, doing so at the threat of imprisonment. Yeahhhhhhh that's the life.

Christopher · 8 months ago

*cough*

How the US has enough land to hold its citizens egos I'll never know!

Reg · 8 months ago

Do you have any clue that it's a 'divide and conquer' strategy....meant to set Americans at each other instead of allowing us to work together to undo the terrible damage of the last eight years. I cannot understand how any Americans continue to support things that are totally against their own self interest.

But, if you want to know who's behind it....(no, not some weird conspiracy theory)......watch this video and think for yourselves.

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/...

hypnopants · 8 months ago

and it seems youve beeen hypnotised to believe that were being hypnotised, but whos really being hypnotised!?!?!?
not me, im a scientologist, you can trust me :D

anthony · 8 months ago

now i do

asdadasd · 8 months ago

this history books will show george bush as a good president, your bull shit media just made you think otherwise. guess what fool. everything we went into iraq to do! we did!, and thats including finding tons and tons of yellow cake uranium. bet you didnt hear about that on msn did ya? check that shit out

eat shit you propaganda buying country ruining liberals

Nikolai · 8 months ago

GWB IS YOUR ASS-DAD, ASS-DAD

John Davis · 8 months ago

No way dude that is insane man!

RT
www.privacy.pro.tc

Your lizard overlords · 8 months ago

Keep fighting among yourselves... that's exactly what we want! <rubs scaly hands together>

fucknut · 8 months ago

i hate you all

James King Auckland NZ · 8 months ago

I like to have sex with dogs... Ever since my father touched me in my naughty hole.

Repicheep · 8 months ago

Someone needs to write a book called "Zen and the Art of being an American"!
I assume you can all read...because some Liberal (?) worked to get universal education and educational standards?

Joe and His Buddy · 8 months ago

Joe likes to smoke tax free marijuana, Sneak fish out of the river without a fishing license, and Joe loves to eat tax free deer caught on his buddy's property where the revenue man's crappy SUV cant make it, because Joe and his buddy have awesome four wheelers. Joe's buddy spent all the tax money he owed on awesome four wheel drive equipment, better fire arms and a off the grid power system.

Joe and his buddy don't like the revenue man. Joe and his buddy grow their own tax free tobacco, and they sell it to their neighbors tax free, under the table.

Joe and His buddy have the best guns, the best four wheelers, and the best tobacco in the county. And they did it because they voluntarily gave themselves a 30% raise by failing to withhold their federal income taxes, and cheat the local government

Nikolai · 8 months ago

Well, I can tell you're not a hunter, because you said "caught" a deer. You can catch a fish, but you kill, bag, shoot or harvest deer. Go ahead, try and "catch" a deer, it'll tear you a new asshole. As far as growing and selling tobacco, it's not really worth it for the most part unless you really know what you are doing, and even then you won't make much, and store-bought loose tobacco is of very good quality and fairly cheap anyway. Sneaking fish out of the river? Sure, lots of folks do it, but don't get caught by Mr Ranger! MJ? Same for that, it's almost not worth growing with the penalties and having to keep the deer, rodents and hikers away. Not paying taxes and putting the extra cash into your SUV? Again, good luck with that. You get caught and your SUV gets confiscated along with your property, and you get busted for your illegal tobacco and MJ and fish and game in your fridge and freezer. Sure, you may get away with it for awhile, but...

asdadasd · 8 months ago

your all dumb, your all faggy liberals cuase you go to college. you can go burn in hell with the other dumb fucks at my school. its your not conservative you dont know how the economy works. and if you think different you can fuck off and eat shit i hope you die a firery death you god damn propaganda eating homos

Nikolai · 8 months ago

Wow, ass-dad, solid argument! Don't go to college "cuase" you might turn into a faggy liberal and actually LEARN something! Wait, you said "at my school." Are you turning into a faggy liberal, ass-dad? Better get back to your single-wide afore you get learned sumthin'!

James · 8 months ago

Electricity (which is usually provided by a private company anyway, as far as I know) and roads don't have to be government-run and tax-funded. Before you say "but who would pay for the roads?", ask yourself this: who pays for the walkways in a mall? When's the last time you payed your mall walkway tax? Who pays for the lights in an office? Do you have to put a nickel in a meter for 30 seconds of light as you walk down a hallway wherever you work?

The answer to those is, the owners pay for those things, because if they didn't nobody would want to go there. Just like a pitch dark office building and a mall with dirt floors wouldn't see much business, you wouldn't want to live in a house where the landlord let the street in front turn to rubble, and you wouldn't want to go shopping downtown if the store owners couldn't get their act together and have parking and an efficient road system. Just because they're surrounded with the work of government doesn't mean the protesters want those things to disappear, they just want them to be privately owned and operated.

Nikolai · 8 months ago

Point taken, but weak argument. If everything WAS privately owned and operated, you'd constantly be paying tolls. Haven't you read about private firms proposing buying the highways and upping the tolls? Be careful what you wish for!

James · 8 months ago

What makes you think tolls are the only way for a road company to get maintenance fees? That would be terrible, and nobody would want to drive, because it would take forever to get anywhere. Do you have to get out your credit card and input your information every time before you make a call, so the phone company can charge you for each individual use? No, because that would suck and nobody would want to use their phones. Instead, I think you'd see a lot of pressure from both businesses and neighborhoods to get the road companies to adopt an easy-to-use, convenient system (probably involving a monthly payment), much like phone companies.

anthony · 8 months ago

Imagine what would happen if all roads were owned by private companies. Would we ever seen an end to toll roads? Doubt it.

Some things, especially utilities, simply work better when public owned. Electric, water and yes, even telephone. Remember that profits don't mean anything to a government. Look at USPS. They're cheap because they only make enough to pay for shipping, their workers, and some other overhead.

People in America don't trust a government because they may screw you over, but people trust companies because they will screw you over. Figures.

Jacob · 8 months ago

I don't know if that already happened, or if jersey just sucks, but all of the tolls in my area just saw a significant increase. Its probably just our liberal state government.

James · 8 months ago

I don't know about you, but if I want something delivered on-time and undamaged, I use UPS. Not that USPS is terrible, but UPS is a better alternative in my eyes.

Also, profits don't mean anything to "a government," much in the same way profits don't mean anything to "a corporation". The people operating those organizations like money, though. One type has market pressure working to keep its prices down and service reasonably good, while the other has a military-enforced monopoly.

Poopshwagg · 8 months ago

Yes, That pic was definitely photoshopped.

(there seems to be a trend in the "photoshopped" comment. It seems to be a way of arousing ire in those who believe some pictures to be unchanged. It also pops up amidst comments arguing two very opposed sides where no compromise seems possible, when the only comment that gets equal response from all is one that attacks the validity of the posted picture. So, no matter how much our opinions differ, we can all share the same opinion...that the person who posted the "photoshopped" comment is a moron.)

But, to be honest, the picture really was photoshopped.

Thanks, Andy, for posting this picture.

anon2929 · 8 months ago

the implication that making use of traffic control devices, paid for by taxes, renders any argument for decreasing taxes hypocritical is not logical. Yes taxes are needed, and yes government should perform certain functions. But that doesn't mean that the government should grow without bound, nor taxes. It is still a valid to discuss the proper size and scope of government and therefore the level of taxes.

Nikolai · 8 months ago

Ok, so the pic was photoshopped. So what? The point is, it's TRUE. Besides, I bet it wasn't photoshopped that radically, but even if it was I'm sure there are teabagging scenes like this happening with even MORE taxpayer facilities/amenities evident in the surrounding areas.

As far as small gov't, big gov't, etc, I don't give a rat's ass as long as the constitution is being followed, money isn't being wasted, and the gov't is concentrating on protecting and serving the people, and NOT spying on them and starting $hit with other countries for no good reason, including stealing resources.

Finally, I abhor the close-mindedness of people who call one another idiots because they disagree with each other. When a logical argument isn't presented but name-calling is, you lose me-the-reader, and tag YOURSELF as the idiot.

One last thing, if you think you have a sound argument, do yourself a favor and type your rant into a word doc first, then do a spell check before you post. You may be an intelligent person who is just a lousy speller, but you come across as lazy and stupid when you start off a rant; "Ceveral peephole disagreed butt im intellagunt and correcct anyways." Good lord, it's the information age(!) use the tools at your disposal! When you don't, I see that you don't care enough to produce something worthwhile, so why should I bother reading it? I'm not talking about the occasional misspelling, improper syntax, or using "effect" when "affect" should be used or vice-versa, so please, grammar police, save your time and energy.

Jacob · 8 months ago

the constitution is not really being followed anymore. at least, its heading down that path.

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

Why are there no signs pointing to the cars and houses? If this picture had been taken 30 years ago in East Germany, there would be. Of course the cars and houses would be falling apart and would be laughably crude in comparison to cars and houses in free societies.

In East Germany there would be arrows pointing to the houses and cars and anyone who suggested that these precious public goods could be privatized would be shouted down. "The very idea of just letting some random companies produce your house and your car, ha!"

If voters hadn't elected to hand over these things to the one and only organization in this country that can maintain it's monopoly using missiles and tanks, do you really think we'd all be driving around on muddy, rutted roads? Can you point to even one innovation that the government has ever made? I really have a hard time understanding why people so enthusiastically trip all over themselves to permanently surrender their freedoms.

You might be surprised to know that the United States had tens of thousands of miles of private roads early in its history, and practically no public roads. The same is true for lighthouses, waterworks, armies and just about anything that you can now point to and claim is a "public good".

The money used to fund these things is taken by force. The monopoly granted to the government to provide them is maintained by force. It really doesn't strike me as much of an accomplishment that these things are being provided by tax money. It's impossible for anyone who suggests that they could be provided by the private sector more efficiently to point to parallel examples. Why would anyone choose to compete with the government's "bottomless pockets"? In most cases, the only way to complete would involve taking something back from the government by force, which is also becoming ever more impractical.

Enjoy your worker's paradise.

Nikolai · 8 months ago

"You might be surprised to know that the United States had tens of thousands of miles of private roads early in its history, and practically no public roads. The same is true for lighthouses, waterworks, armies and just about anything that you can now point to and claim is a "public good".

That was before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which was a long time ago, almost 100 years. That was then, this is now. Things were different then. A lot less people and a lot more resources. Hell, people were different. I wish we could go back to that, but the fact is, it's not going to happen, I know it and you know it. The best we can do now is get control of our gov't as best we can and hold on for dear life. Let's be practical, please.

anthony · 8 months ago

also, would you really think people would create private roads where it's not profitable? no. think rural countryside. do you think that their would be a westward expansion without the railroads? no. those companies didn't want to take the risk of expanding out there, so they had to ask the federal government to aid them. look it up

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

Why do we *have* to have roads where it would otherwise not be profitable? How do we decide where to draw the line? Do we create a 1000 mile road for one grizzled prospector living in the Alaskan bush? No? Why not? How about a 999 mile road? What if there are two grizzled prospectors in the same place, life-partners, say.

For that matter, why did we *have* to go to the moon when Kennedy told us to? Why did we *have* to map the human genome when Dr. Whatshisname convinced congress to fund it?

Government has practically unlimited resources, at least compared to any one private company, especially now. The list of things that we *could* do now with all of that tax money that was forcibly taken from you and me is huge. Now, the goal to teraform Titan is in reach because the government can fund it. There for.... we have to do it right now?

Can you see how this kind of unrestricted use of the hard-earned resources of others might lead to waste? Especially when the ones allocating it are only rewarded when they...allocate it. It has, I assure you, led to plenty of wast. Again, we don't have a parallel universe with which to compare. We both happen to live in the universe where we went to the moon and mapped the human genome and, gee, nothing too bad has come of it. So, must we conclude that it was appropriate and most efficient to do these things?

gThugnastyboy · 8 months ago

Its both Bush and Obamas fault, they have a swecret conspiracy to take over the world for the illumati and give them are money and our lives and stuff. its so obvious just look at the money, it says ho it belongs to there taking it back and will turn us into slaves. Thats why 911 happened and iraq and kennedys and lincolns assasination, for serious look at the coincidences, its so obvious you morons.

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

Is there any reason to think that the concept won't scale? It works for everything else, but not roads? You've lived your entire life in a society where it's always been assumed that roads must be funded publicly. Look around you and you'll see that the MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL motive of profit finds a solution, some how or other, to just about any problem you can conceive of. Contrast that with a collection of people whose only talent is convincing people to vote for them and whose only motive is getting elected.

In order to prove to you that it really would work out just fine, I'd need a parallel universe and probably a very large army. There's not much hope of me getting either, so I'll just sigh instead ..."sigh".

modvavet · 8 months ago

Hehe, feel free to read 'Jennifer Government'... Fiction, but it will make you think...

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

Oh, and OF COURSE IT WAS PHOTOSHOPPED. "Eric James" was making one of the most obvious jokes in the history of the Internet and pretty much no one gets it.

(...noting which side is taken on the "tax" issue by posters who don't get the joke...)

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

@modvavet re "Jennifer Government"

Nope. Haven't read it. Hadn't heard of it until just now.

I do have a question about the plot, though. Um, does Wal-Mart and Mc Donalds directly overtake half of the world with their private armies? Or does the US _GOVERNMENT_ do this? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in the plot, no?

Randy · 8 months ago

wow. i need to send my logic class over to this page. you guys are just full of fallacies.

p.s.
i think you guys need to read up on your definition of liberalism.

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

@modvavet

> Hehe, feel free to read 'Jennifer Government'... Fiction, but it will make you think..

Yes. Good point. It's fiction. Just like any other fantasy where the right to free association is depicted as a bad thing.

Meanwhile: The Soviet Union, Pol Pot, North Korea, Franco, Adolph Hitler, The Spanish conquest of the new world, and many, many non-fiction dystopias brought to you exclusively by government. There is a definite trend to note here.

unkown · 8 months ago

welfare=largest governmental program...we could cut taxes if people didnt live their entire lives off of others.

whatever · 8 months ago

"Cut taxes, not defense"? War is by far the biggest tax sink. But argue that these wars aren't necessary or justified and it will be like arguing with creationists - you just can't get through to these people that decision makers are not always - and in fact, frequently - not acting in their interest or the nation's. They'll dig their heels in and defend the worst, most unforgivable sort of corruption and call it family values.

bucheyplumanomáhesoerestú · 8 months ago

I´m a Puerto Rican who is basically liberal, but both ideologies have much to learn from one another. As do all of you.

I am so afraid of Puerto Rico becoming an American state some day... If the rampant ignorance in our island were not eating away at our potential, we would already be a republic... Oh, well.

En verdad sólo quería escribir algo porque estoy aburrida, jaja. Lolazo.

bucheyplumanomáhesoerestú · 8 months ago

www.conservapedia.com

Funny shit...

Lorenzo · 8 months ago

you will all be buried underneath an avalanche of debt, and so will your offspring. God help all of you.
Now stop with the whining about Republican or Democrat problems and get off your ass to do something about it.

anthony · 8 months ago

not possible in this government

Old Rubberlegs · 8 months ago

@whatever

> "Cut taxes, not defense"? War is by far the biggest tax sink...decision makers are not always...acting in their interest or the nation.

Which is a great argument for limiting the size and power of government. It's very likely that the knucklehead holding that sign is not a clear thinker. But it sounds like you are. Can't we at least agree that limiting the power of government would have minimized some of the crazy interventionist exploits of the likes of Bush? If people hadn't have been looking the other way for generations as presidents unconstitutionally stole more and more power, it would have been much harder for Bush to play war.

Any time you hand power to government, you have to keep in mind that some day people who you consider to be "the bad guys" are going to inherit that power. Idiot Republicans who had no problem with Bush and friends wielding unprecedented power are now going to have to deal with idiot Democrats using those same powers. Every few terms, the cycle repeats. The only constant is that government's power grows ever larger, more powerful and belligerent.

me · 8 months ago

Why do you hate America so much?

Guy · 8 months ago

I believe the point the people in the picture are trying to make is NO FEDERAL TAXES -- as in no federal income tax. State taxes pay for everything you see in the photo.

Stephen Ackart · 8 months ago

My name is John (Stephen Ackart) and I wake up and drink my coffee and take the bus to work...Oh wait, I am homeless and at a McDonald's where someone left there iPhone so I can get free Wi-Fi and write this. Gotta go.....

J Cluster · 8 months ago

I really like the first comment!

I live in Canada where solid public education is available to everyone. Even university is fairly inexpensive; our tax dollars at work people! Unfortunately for our American cousins to the south (and I assume this picture to be the Deep South) that isn't the case.

I think these protester's moronic signs are a cry for help. They should say "educate me with my tax dollars" and "stop corporate welfare" but of course, they would need the basic knowledge that those are things that could be done.

Jet · 8 months ago

To whom it may concern,

I too am Canadian...and all our social liberal programs DO work......we have the perfect balance of conservative beliefs and liberal social programs. Think about it...Police and Fire.do these institutions work fine? Then why can't healthcare? Government programs maybe not be 100% perfect...but they sure are more closer to perfect that what the USA has going on these days...

Take a look at your friends in the north. We regulate our banks...we educate our people, we give healthcare to all...and the argument that free healthcare turns us into fat lazy people who smoke/drink is ridiculous. Come see for yourself. Stop being stubborn..you're falling behind the rest of us.

It is not too late to save things for your children.

Eric · 7 months ago

Mr Jet you have been lied to, probably by your public education system. You learned to love the fact that your government steals your money and thinks it knows what is best for it. You love it!! But how can you help a man by stealing his property? You simply can't. Your healthcare system assumes that there will be more people paying in than are collecting. This won't always be the case. My country, the USA, has been bankrupt for 40 years because of programs like social security, now we have to borrow or print our money. I'm not sure if that is the case in Canada, but you still have a central bank so your economy is fake like ours.

Nat G · 8 months ago

So, do they just not have any understanding of WHY TAXES ARE TAKEN?

How do they plan to HAVE a national defense (if you can call it that now anyway) if the government doesn't even have any PRETEND money.

gThugnastyboy · 8 months ago

Its both Bush and Obamas fault, they have a swecret conspiracy to take over the world for the illumati and give them are money and our lives and stuff. its so obvious just look at the money, it says ho it belongs to there taking it back and will turn us into slaves. Thats why 911 happened and iraq and kennedys and lincolns assasination, for serious look at the coincidences, its so obvious you morons.

Brian · 8 months ago

You do all know that the liberals and conservatives of this day are merely parodies of their former selves right? The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, he hated violence and also believed in human rights for all races a sexes. His primary opponent was Stephen A. Douglas of the Northern Democratic Party, who was also supported by the Southern Democratic Party because of his ambitions to bring slavery back to the Northern states lexicon and legalize it for all territories, which he denied when accused of it (possible beginning of American politician's bull-shitting their way out of everything?)
More recently, look at John F. Kennedy's policies. He was inarguably liberal, but firmly believed in capitalist values, second ammendment rights and he hated communists and socialists with a passion, the same goes as well for FDR. Looking at thier policies can you not say that what used to be liberal would now be considered conservative?
My parents are both conservative, but honestly that hasn't really effected my political outlook. This last election I voted independent because I really detest both of the major parties. There really are no differences between the two, except one wants to socialize healthcare, which as a Brit I can say is not as terrific as people make it sound. Long waits for both clinics and ERs, hit or miss doctors, beats the shit out of taxes, and half of the generic drugs don't actually work.

Brian · 8 months ago

Oh, and another thing. Unionisation wasn't actually brought about by liberals, it was started by mobs vying for power in the legitimate business world. And the AC power grids used in the states were developed by Tesla, a foreigner taught by Edison, and he was known for having capitalist interests as well. Edison was top-notch capitalist as well, and Ben Franklin helped develop the capitalist constitution the country was built upon. Henry Ford, the automotive pioneer who was the inventor of the assembly line, well, I think it speaks for itself. Build cars faster, make money faster, you know.
Look at today and you have a bunch of criminals and tech. school drop-outs running these large businesses and the politicians gamble with your money, and then throw the rest to the people who got us into this mess.
Bush was only behind the first stimulus plan that buggered your country a bit. But the last two drawn up by Obama and his crew of bandits have really jammed it half way up your asses. Really he's screwing America hard, only three months in and he's already wasted more money than Bush managed to in a whole year. Not to mention he's running around and kissing the ass of every tyrant who has tried to destroy the States in the last 60 years.
You see, the problem is that both the liberals and conservatives are being idiots. You choose a party, not a candidate. You're all more focused on the label than you are on the issues. I mean, was Obama a better pick than McCain? Probably, but only given the fact that if McCain had won and died in office things would be in the hands of that Sarah Palin moron. Otherwise I don't think things would be much different, except maybe the stimulus packages would have been smaller and more regulated. Maybe.
Granted Obama has one thing McCain doesn't, and that's the ability to connect with people. He is a very persuasive and powerful speaker. Not half as powerful as Bill Clinton was, but still well enough to control public opinion. If he had half a brain in his head he'd stop saying how things will get harder and how we're still going through hardship, and actually speak on a positive note. Give people confidence. Economics are reliant on the confidence of the people within. If he does that, this recession will end within two months.

Farzan · 8 months ago

Damn good point. W/O liberals we would never had a long list of eveything we all take for granted; from safer food to no slavery. Why the conservatives get elected has always been a mystry.

Zubadeedubdub · 8 months ago

Fuck Bush.

Not_Fooled · 8 months ago

All of you that buy in to the left Vs. right are zombies. They are one in the same. No matter who is in control, things are always the same. Wake up you confused slaves!

adelle · 7 months ago

anyone ever see the movie "Stranger than Fiction" with Will Farrell and Maggie Gyldenhaal? The female character owns a bakery, and never pays taxes. The male character is the IRS auditor who goes to see why she hasn't paid taxes. She says something that pertains to this picture "I don't mind paying taxes for fixing the potholes in the roads and providing lunches to school kids, but I don't want my money going to a war we shouldn't be in" (that's a paraphrase)

The gist is: taxes are necessary for the infrastructure, public services, etc. but should they be going to unjust things? should our taxes pay for a bailout/fascist take over of the banks? For now the government DOES own the banks, and when gov't owns businesses it is one aspect FASCISM. And we get handed the tab, for our benevolent, kind and wise government that does everything so efficiently and well...to OWN THE BANKS.

scary

Brdy · 7 months ago

I agree get rid of centralized government, make voting mandatory so we all can have a vote that counts towards something. We don't need a government to fight back against some single idiot trying to take away our ideals. I also believe that we should move to a resource based system instead of a commerce based system. We don't need money it just creates wars and mine is bigger than yours kinda fights. It doesn't matter anyway it will eventually go that route anyways and all of you so call republicans, liberals, democrats, what have you, all will be gone when nano-tech hits the so called fan. Everything that cost anything will be cost nothing, including food, cars, homes, etc. Everything will be able to be "printed" out. Want a hot steak, boom got it just the way you want it. Want a car, how fast? Sports car of family sedan? Need gas that isn't flammable until perfect conditions are presented? Got it. You know who will make all of this? We will. Just think Linux. Everything made free by the public better than anything out there and in many different flavors. And no one will stop this from happening they can't free is free and will be past around like a dirty whore in a max security prison.

Photoshop Expert · 7 months ago

Shopped! I can tell from the pixels and from seeing a few 'shops in my time :-D

Brad · 7 months ago

"I'm confused, which liberals were it that fought to create the FDA? Theodore Roosevelt signed it into existence, granted you could argue that Upton Sinclair and his journalism, represented in The Jungle were responsible for this...you'd be partially right. Of course, if you want to claim this Liberal, you would also have to claim that Stalin, Hitler and Lenin were all in that part of "liberals", given that Sinclair was a Socialist, going so far as to even run on the Socialist ticket a few times in his life for political office here."

Just because Sinclair and Stalin were both Socialists does not mean they were both liberal. Also, Hitler has absolutely nothing to do with this. Nazis were fascist and EXTREMELY conservative. They also despised and killed communists.

Just because a republican does something, does not make that act conservative. The meat packaging regulation was extremely liberal and progressive. If things had stayed the way they were we'd be eating God knows what.

As for FDR, yes he was a racist, but as was the times. Were it not for him though, we wouldn't have the reformed version of Social Security we have today.

boomboom · 7 months ago

Thank god some liberal thought to label everything.

Eric · 7 months ago

No politician, liberal or conservative, ever produced anything. We don't have roads because a politician produced them. What the politicians did was steal our property. That's all they did, they seized control of our property and put it somewhere else. What humanitarians!!! If someone stole your car would you be okay with it as long as he let other people use it? Probably not. To advocate taxes in any form requires you to advocate theft. Theft is immoral, legal or illegal. What it comes down to is: security is needed, but is one man's need a rightful claim on the property of another? The moral answer is no, the political answer is yes.

Shawnner · 7 months ago

Joe gets up at 6am & goes to work. He works hard to provide for his family... a large percentage of his taxes go towards providing for the "victim" that's still in bed hours after Joe has begun work.

Rentals · 6 months ago

I just love it. Thanks for sharing this. What a funny photo! Keep rocking!

me · 5 months ago

the real issue is we have no real say where our taxes are spent.

bghfdsa · 5 months ago

Because in the absence of taxes, private entrepreneurs would never build roads...http://www.mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx