Why IS Mommy a Democrat???
Created on: October 13th, 2006
Why IS Mommy a Democrat???
Truth Hurts
None ( ._.)

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(2.87) 149 5 219

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 0 0 0 3,986

Inbound links:

views url
49 https://www.bing.com
4 http://www.google.com.hk
2 http://216.18.188.175:80
1 http://mommycode.net/
1 http://mommyiamsick.com/

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
HOLY CRAP! A non-democrat on the internet! (prepare for downvotes)
October 13th, 2006
(0)
just as ridiculous as the 'there are liberals under my bed' book
October 13th, 2006
(0)
i found some humor in the idea of sh*tting on a children's book i'd never even heard of.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Where can I purchase this book?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
your my hero!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Becoming richer by gaining the money from others (one way or another) is indeed fairly effective. And personally, I think the only way for society to further itself is for people to actually think of others instead of sometimes maybe helping them by coincidence while helping themselves actively.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
An ad for it shows up on on top of my YTMND all the time. It says "The book George W. Bush doesn't wan't your kids to read".
October 13th, 2006
(0)
I find the propaganda book amusing, but politics is stupid, in my eyes. And aligning yourself with a certain party instead of deciding which candidate is better for yourself is stupider.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
nice, screw the haters
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Its a democrat propaganda children's book. You've got to warp their minds early! VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
I vote Libertarian locally and Statewide.
(0)
5 SECONDS UNTILL SPONSER DRAMA!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
indeed, indoctrinated children into politics (and religion for that matter) is stupid, merely because its beyond childrens understanding. to me, its borderline and sometimes flat out abuse. there are some political "kids books" out there meant as satire, and thats a different story altogether - however why anyone'd rather read those is beyond me.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
1'd for ideologues on both sides
October 13th, 2006
(0)
4 because the of the irony of your using "Gorillaz"
(0)
Democrats are actually moderate conservatives im my opinion. Also the republicans have turned into the bible beaters of america so I would rather have a democrat in office, but I do not want a democrat in office if you see what I’m getting at.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
ok, so why is this on ytmnd
October 13th, 2006
(0)
+1 for gorillaz
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Democrats are the worst thing for this country.
May 23rd, 2007
(0)
well except conservatives, yeah.
October 13th, 2006
(-1)
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Love it, don't trust Democrats!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Libertarianism is like republicans without the crappy stuff. Its essentially the keep yo hands off my stuff philosophy proposed by the french as "Laisses Faire"
October 13th, 2006
(0)
The book alone would have been amusing enough. Why did you feel the need to offer a rebuttal to a children's book with talking squirrels? Also, are you from the 1950's or something? I didn't think anybody still thought that way nowadays!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Democrats=Communists
October 13th, 2006
(0)
I'm pro-choice
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Updated with captions
October 13th, 2006
(0)
State governments can define who it recognizes as married legally. The federal government should have no say on that matter.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Woot! Political! oh eya... Vote Libertarian
October 13th, 2006
(0)
A constitutional libertarian recognizes State's constitutional power. I may not agree with what certain states do, however they are well within their right to do so.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Yeah, it's me again. I see you've departed from religious crap, at least for the moment. The reason I'm fiving this isn't because of any political views... hell, I don't even live in America, so I have no right to comment on America's tangled politics anyway. But the thing is, I love to see bullsh*t propaganda like that get the smackdown. That's an incredibly low blow... trying to gain votes by convincing obsessive parents that somehow the other side is bad for families.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Republicans and Democrats suck equally, but this country needs a two party system to keep things in check. However, the problem is, most Democrats are actually quite moderate, and most Republicans are hard right. It'd be nice if there actually WERE socialists in congress to even things out a bit.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Can't happen. People would just point, yell, "Commie!" and that would be the end of that. And how appropriate, since this site is about propoganda.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"Now kids, what do you call it when you treat people as equals when they aren't?" "Communism!" Books like these aren't fit for kids, just like that book that describes how Hillary and union leaders wants to molest you in your sleep. We're just better off making sure our children think for themselves and don't just agree with authority (including parents) "just because."
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Sweet Jesus forgive this guy for being such a retard. There have been funny right-wingers on YTMND. You're not one of them. This is a bad campaign commercial with worse graphics and that's all. Where's the workmanship? Where's the humor?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Earlyace, you are smoking crack. Congress is full of Socialists. Every democrat and most of the republicans are socialists. Our liberty went out the window long ago. The New Deal took the biggest chunk from it.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Republicans 1, Democrats 0.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Way to call public education a monopoly. That right there discredits anything else you might possibly even consider beginning to think about contemplating. Read a god damn book on the subject before you go spouting ludicrous statements. It is not a for profit system, therefor categorizing its competition in market based terms is completely ludicrous. I could write for a couple pages on the topic but you can go research it for yourself. God, people are stupid.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"State governments can define who it recognizes as married legally. The federal government should have no say on that matter." Unless it violates the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. Slavery is not legal, no matter how many legislators in Alabama want it to be. Stop talking, please. Don't ever write anything again. You're just making a mockery of yourself.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
And yes, affording rights to some citizens rather than others based on a religious custom is against the constution. Thus, the need for marriage to be interpreted as civil union (otherwise it should not be legally recognized). If it is interpreted as civil union, then discriminating by sexual orientation is unconstitutional and in the next decade or so once the Christicans are out of power the hypocrisy will end.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Please do read up on the education issue as it is the cornerstone of any democratic nation and you are obvioulsy left wanting in that department.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
YTMND is not a place for politics. Take this crap elsewhere.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
korf comes in with his uneducated, yet hysterical arrogant comments, yay. Hey korf, tell you what. How bout we take the government, and we put it in charge of the internet? It will just give it away for free and be funded by our tax dollars. It won't be a monopoly because korf says so!!! Yay. Government should run more businesses korf Marx says so. And being recognized as a married couple is not a right, its a privilege just as is a driving license.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Why do you care if the government recognizes you and your boyfriend as a married couple anyways korf? We all see you as man and wife anyways.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
What if I was gay? Does that mean that my points are invalid? Or do you really think that you can just throw out fallacies and think you've made a valid point?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Education is underprovided if it is treated as a private good. Education is a fundamental ideal of democracy. Without informed citizens you get mob rule. Thus, education must be provided in some other fashion. One way is by using school vouchers, another is by using charter schools. Studies on the effects of these sytems have not yielded as drastic differences as had been expected. Students assigned at random to attend better high schools in Chicago showed no statistically significant difference to those...
October 13th, 2006
(0)
who did not. Thus, simply treating it as a, "You get what you pay for" private good is a completely ridiculous and unfounded statement. Now you acting on the pretense that you have a clue is pretty hysterical and arrogant. You probably haven't ever even looked into the points that you make. You just think that intuition trounces evidence? Come on now. You at least should be stupid enough to realize how stupid you are.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"tax dollars taken by force." Wow, now that is a gem of a statement. You propose a government that is funded purely on donations? Is anyone actually paying attention to the things this guy is saying? Are you honestly kidding me? Can you name one government in the history of the world that hasn't taken tax dollars by force? Or do you just think that sensationalism can take the place of honest discourse? Is that your contention?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
That's as far as I made it through, too, like 3 slides. I could continue, but I doubt you want me to. You should at least put up some sort of veil of evidence. Simply spouting off ignorant opinion on matters which have libraries of evidence is not the best way to make yourself seem the unbiased, accurate person that your news programs would want you to be.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
What evidence do you want? That privatized education far exceeds public? Do you really want to play that game? I know what you are korf. You are an elite. You believe you are so far more informed than the regular citizen that you must, through government, lookout for them and their helpless stupidity. Try this on for size. Our government requires that parents keep their children fed. Yet.... are the vast majority of kids eating out of the government's hands? How can we allow private industry to provide food
October 13th, 2006
(0)
That doesn't sound very elitist to me. Elitists would let the poor people starve to death and call it natural selection. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing that education for all is a cornerstone of democratic ideals? If you are, then I mean... I don't really know what to say. That's typically assumed that people understand this. If you're saying our country doesn't believe in democratic ideals... well, again, I don't know what to say.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
a) way to sponsor your own site b) your political opinion means just as much to me as whetstone's religious beliefs. FYADIAF
October 13th, 2006
(0)
There is original constitutional means in which to fund our federal government, but only to the point in which it was originally intended to run. If you want evidence, we only need to examine the world countries. The more government regulated the country is, the lower the GDP. Socialism only leads to poverty. Proven 100 times over, and yet idiots like you in small countries still vote for socialists because they are uneducated in economics.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Now, when you talk about privatized education, you sound like the elitist. Privatization methods can be used, but since poor families don't have the ability to pay for what would be considered sufficient education in order to protect the wellbeing of our populace as a whole there must be some sort of subsidy program. Disagreeing with the status quo as far as the public school system is fine and quite common, but disagreeing with government funding of education is quite obviously elitist...
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Try to grasp this korf. It is required that parents provide food for their children, however it is expected that they acquire said food through private means. The same should be true with education. Charity, cannot exist when the government holds a monopoly on it. If people didn't have their wages garnished by force, they would be more inclined to help the poor. On top of that, America is the most charitable nation on the planet. Imagine if we were allowed to do it out of true charity and not have it forced
October 13th, 2006
(0)
undemocratic and quite ignorant of the economic and social factors that one must consider. If you're calling me an academic elitist because I act like I know more on the subject... and I do know more on the subject... then this does not seem like a damaging claim. In fact, I have studied this subject and you obviously have not. I would hope that you treat yourself as an elitist in physics relative to a kingergartener. If you don't, well then you've got a warped sense of reality.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
As for using the term elitist in this context it doesn't seem to be correct, but I'm just going with the word in the context you used it in. It carries quite a different connotation and definition in this context, typically. Go look it up if you're confused.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Elitists believe they are better than the rest of the public. Recognizing that every possible form of government will allways be corrupt and impossible to correct is not elitist. It's called being a realist.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
It seems to me that all evidence points to the contrary of your claims, as the government subsizes both food and education for families who cannot afford it. This does not in any way point to your claim that parents must provide food and education for their children. It points to me to be a socialist notion which we adopted many years ago and maintain still, even under our current elitist president.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
My anger does not end towards our media and socialized society who now just accepts the notion that our society can only be charitable and care for the poor if the money is forced from us. You fall hook, line, and sinker for socialists in office who brainwash you to keep them in power.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"Elitists believe they are better than the rest of the public. Recognizing that every possible form of government will allways be corrupt and impossible to correct is not elitist. It's called being a realist." How does this relate at all to the discussion? This is completel irrelevent. Nowhere have I discussed the efficiency of the government. We are discussing the merits of publicly funded education. Even if the public funding is corrupt and ineficient it does not necessitate that it is worse...
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"It is required that parents provide food for their children, however it is expected that they acquire said food through private means. " The poor get food stamps. Gujjob!
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Our president is a socialist. We are being held back as a nation because of sheep like you that have just bought into the idea that only government can care for the poor. And that, in and of itself breeds more impoverished people, who have a sense of entitlement and are not motivated to actually be responsible for their own lives.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
than privatization. Honestly, you're just talking out of your *ss now. I'd love to teach you about how to debate the correct topic but that's what your university is for. And, if you go to Texas A&M or some other public university... well then you're a hypocrite. Also all that charity talk is also irrelevent to the conversation. Especially considering you are talking about the largest economy in the world... if we aren't the most charitable in volume then something is severely wrong.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Ever heard of the Shriner's Hospital? If not you may want to look it up.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
You are so blinded by your government. Instead of us having a choice of which charity is the most efficient, and thereby funding effective means of help, you demand that everyone must suck on mommy government's tits.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Oh, right, and what I actually came back here to say. Upon further review, you gotta question how much this book (or at elast the parts you show) are actually propoganda. It can just as easily be a way to explain liberal philosophy in terms a child can understand. Yes, there's anti-conservative imagery, but that's just a dark inside joke. No child is going to see that elephant, develop a fear of it, and therefore never support republicans. That's just ridiculous.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
The poor get foodstamps. Yes. They do. Now, what is the percentage of American citizens that use foodstamps? Compare that to the percentage of our population that uses public schools....
October 13th, 2006
(0)
That's because schooling and food are very different. Food is one-shot whereas schooling is continuous. You might use food stamps once a week but a kid will be in the same school for years. You gonna yank a kid out of his school in january because his family's financial situation's changed? It's just not practical.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Get your politics off of my YTMND
October 13th, 2006
(0)
It's just so sad how many people see no other avenue than the government for help.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Go read the about page there Marcus... kthx bai
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Hint: If you want your words to be more respectable, you might want to repeat them less and back them more.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
What do you want backed there buddy? That private schools far outperform public? That private charities, when they aren't snuffed out by government, are far more effective and less corrupt?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
"We are being held back as a nation because of sheep like you that have just bought into the idea that only government can care for the poor. And that, in and of itself breeds more impoverished people, who have a sense of entitlement and are not motivated to actually be responsible for their own lives." Actually, I rely on evidence not belief. Your propoganda fails miserably. Ending now because you refuse to speak rationally.
October 13th, 2006
(0)
Tell me what you want evidence of? What is it that you find so hard to believe?
October 13th, 2006
(0)
I mean, I would think common sense would tell you this, but if you must have evidence, fine. Just name it.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
True....but it's too bad that both major parties are now controlled by the same people and in the end, sooner or later, come to the same results. America is a people of sheep, they can be hearded by very few oh so easily.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
I'm talking about this assertion: "It's just so sad how many people see no other avenue than the government for help." You should actually provide some backing to it. Unless your purpose is not to inform but merely to mock, in which case you're certainly not one to be talking about elitism.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
"Our president is a socialist." I just wanted to say, you are moronic. Our president isn't socialist... I think you forgot the definitions of governments from your history teacher back in highschool :/.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
"The United States treats its socialism the way a priest treats masturbation -- it does it very rarely, with a great amount of guilt, and tries very hard to ignore the amount of relief it brings."
October 14th, 2006
(0)
But seriously... Republicans don't want to make people poor... They want to make them Christians and enforce their moral system on others while at the same time enlarging government controls... Unfortunatley... Democrats want to do the same thing except about the Christian part. Personally... I'd settle for Norway's or Sweeden's Government. Socialism does work, but you need to keep greedy *ssh*l*es out of government to do so... Which won't happen in the United States anytime soon.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Socialism not only does not work (look to Canada or any Europeans healthcare system) but it is a gross violation of our freedom. Redistribution of wealth is a direct slight in the face of liberty. You have no right to redistribute wealth.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Greed is a $#%ing great thing. It's why America is #1. It is why we are the most innovative. Why would anyone work hard, if there were a limit to how much you could make? What would be the point?
October 14th, 2006
(0)
The point would be bettering society. No, most people today don't think like that; they don't really care about bettering society. Is it possible for most people to think that way? I believe so. How can we make it happen? I don't know, it doesn't seem easy. But it sure as hell will never happen if we foster a society which encourages selfcentered behavior.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
BTW, you never said were one should turn for help if not the government (I assume this refers to the poor, since people with money can just buy help). I mean, if everyone is greedy (which apparently is the ideal) then the poor are f*cked because then the only way to get anyone to do anything would be to pay them, which the poor can't afford to do.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Amen!
October 14th, 2006
(0)
I am all for private charity. I donate money at time towards many of them. Government is not the place for charity, and your fellow man is more generous when he gives of his own free will, and is not forced to. And if you would study history, selfishness has served for the betterment of society . For it is self driven success that has lead to almost all the innovations and breakthroughs our society has seen. Because if you better society, you are going to get rich from it, as well you should.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Why should anyone ever give money? That's not being greedy at all; it's the opposite. Isn't greed "$#%ing great?" And no, you won't get rich just from bettering society, that's ridiculous. Somebody could spend as much time as they could volunteering for good causes, working for money only the minimal amount needed to sustain their existance, and they certainly won't get rich, but they'll certainly be helping society.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
5'd for overreacting about a kids' book. Have you seen the ultra-conservative kids' books, too? They're just as fun.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Here it is, kids: "Help Mom! There's Liberals Under My Bed!" http://www.amazon.com/Help-There-Liberals-Under-Bed/dp/0976726904 Order your copy today!
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Zak, they are free to do that if they so wish. However, the people that do seek getting rich for their work, they actually do more to help society. Because they provide jobs. They spend their money. Now I'm not knocking people who live modestly and help others, they do what they know and if they are happy, that's all that matters. But I'll be damned if my government is going to force people to live that way. Go live in europe and suffer with the rest of them. Don't destroy my country.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Jobs aren't necessarily good, not if the workers are exploited. And I still don't understand about greed. If greed is good, how can doing the exact opposite of be greedy ALSO be good?
October 14th, 2006
(0)
The double standard, while in itself obviously problematic, also makes your gripes seem pointless. You rag on the govt for forcing people to be ungreedy, but if both being greedy and ungreedy are good, then what does it really matter? Excuse my word-fabrication.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
The government need only concern itself when one thing happens. Someone's right's are violated. The government forcing you to be anything is unconstitutional. We are a nation founded under liberty, not "hey let's let the majority decide how we should live and force the rest to follow." If I want to be selfish and not give a dime to charity, that's my right as a human being.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
Now, that being said, greed is good because it drives man to succeed. As I illustrated in the above post. A person that gets rich bettering society actually does more to help society than someone who remains poor. Wealthy people drive the economy, they employ workers, they spread the money throughout the market. Now if greed gets to the point where it violates another person's rights, then, and only then, is it "bad".
October 14th, 2006
(0)
As for "exploiting workers". That does not exist in a free market, and especially not in our nation. Do you realize that our unemployment rate is at around 4%. Far less than any socialist eurotrash country. Or communist South American country. What that means is, if you don't like the way your employer treats you, you go find a better job. Something that is demonstratively easy in our job market. Government has no right to set standards of how a company employs it's people. People are free to choose jobs.
October 14th, 2006
(0)
On top of that, they can create their own job, in our thriving economy, and easy small business laws. Stop listening to communist unions who want your money, stop listening to Lou Dobbs, stop listening to socialist anti-liberty democrats, and realize that only YOU can control your job quality, and in no way is that the responsibility of your employer. Furthermore minimum wage is nothing but a burden to the poor and youth of america.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Republicans talk about gay marriage and abortion too much. +3 for music...kinda sucks.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"Socialism not only does not work (look to Canada or any Europeans healthcare system) but it is a gross violation of our freedom. Redistribution of wealth is a direct slight in the face of liberty. You have no right to redistribute wealth." a gross violation of our freedom? sounds like you want the courts to intervene...you should know where i'm going with this.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"just as ridiculous as the 'there are liberals under my bed' book"
October 15th, 2006
(0)
You mispelled truthiness.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics. There are no winners and all participants are retarded.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"If I want to be selfish and not give a dime to charity, that's my right as a human being." And if everyone decided to do that and be greedy (which is good), then the poor and helpless would be screwed, which is bad. You can't have a system that relies both on human greed and on human sympathy at the same time. It doesn't make sense.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"Wealthy people drive the economy, they employ workers, they spread the money throughout the market. " Actually, the very rich can accumulate a large concentration of money under themselves, money that might never be spent. And if they're greedy, then it probably won't. "As for "exploiting workers". That does not exist in a free market, and especially not in our nation. Do you realize that our unemployment rate is at around 4%. " Exploited workers dont quit, they keep working b/c they have no choice.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"Government has no right to set standards of how a company employs it's people. " If they didn't do it here, we'd have exploited workers. Since it's illegal here, businesses get labor from countries where it is legal. If one is greedy, one can literally go and sell human rights and dignity, not to mention trash the environment for money as well. Some things are more important than money...
October 15th, 2006
(0)
"Furthermore minimum wage is nothing but a burden to the poor and youth of america." ???
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Independants ftw
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Of #@$@ing course you can have a system that relies on greed and compassion. We have done it since the founding of our great nation. Anyone can act out of greed and compassion at the same time. It's not a zero sum game. However, the government should not promote either. The government should stay the hell out of the way, until someone's rights are violated.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Zak, it would help if you would take a course on basic economics, at least. When rich people make money, the reason they are rich, is because they know how to invest it. They don't go hide their money away. They put it to work. And by doing so, they stimulate the economy, they fund companies that hire employees.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
I love how confounded people are when I tell them that minimum wage hurts the poor. They are so brainwashed by socialist ideals that they just can't open their mind to any facts. To understand how minimum wage hurts the poor and youth, you need to get a basic grasp of economics. How our job market works, how employers pay their employees. You see a wage is not just some arbitrary number. A wage is how much an employer can afford to pay someone for a given job, and still make profit.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
When the government comes in and arbitrarily assigns a minimum amount that any job can pay, that then makes the jobs that are only worth less than minimum wage implausible. Yes there are jobs out there that just aren't worth more than $5 an hour. Also, the uneducated and underexperienced cannot compete for jobs when the government forbids them competing with compensation. Some jobs are worth more in experience than actual pay. You can't have that with a minimum wage. It cheats the youth and the poor.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
4 for FUNNY messages, +1 for distinct political debate (if you can call it that) on YTMND, which I will join.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Socialism (The next evolution of liberalism) does not work because it snuffs the initiative of the individual to rescue the unmotivated. If you knew that, no matter how hard you worked at you job, no matter how many extra hours you stayed there, you wouldn't see an extra dime, you wouldn't wok very hard, would you? In our system, the people who work hard as hell, make more money, and are allowed to have a better material life. If they want to donate some of that extra money to the poor, thats their decision
October 15th, 2006
(0)
You put it better than I did Agent. Thank you. It's just funny, no matter how many times history has proven these facts, people refuse to see them. If you could make an economy and society work hard "for the greater good" the Soviet Union should have worked. People just aren't going to work harder simply because others in society choose to work less.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
You're missing the point. It's illogical to have a system where greed gets you ahead, yet expect some people in the system to be supported by the sympathy of others. If EVERYONE tries to get ahead (very plausible situation I'd say) then some people end up screwed, and to me that's certainly a bad thing.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
And I didnt say the rich do lock their money away in a bank account, I was just pointing it out as a possibility. And I now understand the issue with minimum wage, though at the same time it prevents labor-saturated markets from ending up with exploited workers (enter the uneducated poor with the lack of public education). Again... probably no easy answer...
October 15th, 2006
(0)
And of course socialism isn't going to work if everyone is going to be a greedy bastard about it. You can't take the mindset of one system and apply it to another, that obviously isn't going to work. The thing to understand is that in communism you don't work for yourself, you work for society. You do things for the benefit of your fellow man. Look at early maoist china: those farmers worked their asses off, and why? Because they thought they were helping their country.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Were they really? Ehh. But the point is, people can get motivated to help someone other than themselves, and if society is ever to advance, they damn well better. Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by this or that. From a neutral perspective it could be you that's brainwashed. What I'm saying is, just stop being such an ass; it makes people more receptive.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Finally, the fact that you insult europeans as opposed to pitying them because their government forces them to live in misery makes me think that you not so much philosophically opposed to socialism as you are terrified of it, like many americans are. And this is often due to? OMG, propoganda! See, I'm totally with the point of this here YTMND.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Socialism and Communism are not even acceptable arguments. I cannot respect anyone that cannot see fact for fact. Sure they would work in a fairytale land where everyone loved everyone, and everyone wasn't lazy. But that's never going to happen, therefor socialism and communism will never , ever, ever work.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Society advances fine with capitalism. Where achievement yields wealth. Is Bill Gates working for the betterment of society or his bank acct? However, in his personal life, he's putting billions toward charity. You would never in your life see that in a fully socialist or communist country.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
And yes, I am terrified of socialism. While I do pity the Europeans who live under it, we are moving closer and closer to complete socialism in our own country because our citizens are uneducated on economics. It terrifies me to think that our beautiful nation could become just another welfare state with people rioting when the government allows companies to fire bad workers.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Complete socialism? Yeah. There's like no private industry left anymore. And the government fights absolutely no wars in the interest of furthering american industry. Nope. Not even one.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Make that PRIVATE american industry. And with politicians often in the pockets of big corporations (where else are they supposed to get campaign funding?), you'd think the laws would be made in the interest of greedy, rich businesses. And did you not read my example about china? People CAN work for someone other than themselves. As social organisms, it's only logical. It's a societal thing, really; how people are raised.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Look at the things America HAS accomplished under Capitalism: Going from a handfull of colonies to one of the last world powers in just 300 years, the automobile, the airplane, spaceflight, a plethora of medical breakthroughs, the computer, the list goes on and on. Most of those things were created so that whoever created them could get rich, but can you dispute the positive impact they have had on the global society?
October 15th, 2006
(0)
LMAO those farmers in China weren't working to better "society". They were working for their government, or more accurately, fear of their government. That's why socialism must slide down to communism. There is no way, other than in a dream world that you can rid society of lazy people, selfish people, or incompetent people. And until you do, Socialism will never be a viable option.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
I can dispute the "positive" effects the US had on the areas it dominates through economical imperialism, or the effects on the forcefully displaced (or just plain killed) natives. Both are mostly for economic gain of course.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
What are you talking about? The farmers supported mao. They werent afraid of him, they loved him. And they thought what he told them to do would help everyone. Also laziness is not an issue. I dont see how incompetence, unless its extremely widespread, is a problem either. The only obstacle is selfishness, which if not through societal change then through genetic manipulation, can be severely reduced. But like I said, never will that work through society if society continues to encourage selfcentered greed.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Laziness is not an issue? So what do you do with those that won't work? Or do their job poorly? Can't fire them, they might become poor.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Same thing that happens to people that dont want to advance their economic standing, under capitalism. For the intentionally unhelpful, anyway. If someone simply cannot do a good job, might as well have em do the best they can, just like theyll probably do anyway.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
If you have ever managed any workers, you would know that if people know that they will get paid the same no matter what, they will do the absolute least amount of work possible. No one is getting out of bed and working their @ss off for the "betterment of society". Especially when society as it is is as f'ed up as it is.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
It's clear you are absolutely unable, at the moment, to conceive a society different in any significant way fromt he one you currently live in. This is arrogance; the society you happen to be a part of is NOT the only possible one. At the same time, I don't blame you; when you spend your entire life with something as a constant, it obviously becomes difficult to consider anything else a possibility.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
So maybe it's okay that you can't open your mind to the necessary extent. But please try to understand that the majority, out of all people on the entire planet, for all time from now on, will be as selfish and materialistic as the people you live surrounded by.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
Lacking funny.
October 15th, 2006
(0)
You obviously watch star trek too damn much. LMAO
October 16th, 2006
(0)
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Never seen it.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
(insert some sort of smiley that doesn't work because it looks vaguely like html)
October 16th, 2006
(0)
You have never seen Star Trek? Ok, now you have just lost all my respect. Were are you from? China?
October 16th, 2006
(0)
dude ur pretty wrong but thats not the point. Didnt make me laugh, and I disagree... one star.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Wrong that communism and socialism is bad? go #$ ya self.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Okay, I can just stop communicating now, you're kidding around, and I don't much feel like kidding around with you. And if you're being serious, then I definitely don't think there's much point in conversing with you much longer...
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Sure I'll vote democrat
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Dude, if you are defending communism, I see no point in a serious convo with you. It would be nothing but a joke.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
lol a republican from texas?
October 16th, 2006
(0)
This is more out of place on YTMND than the Whetstone sites. Republicans are worse than democrats though.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Yes, republicans are all rich greedy bastards who want to make the poor poorer. We know.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
lol assuming thats real its like the sweetest and lamest propaganda I've ever seen -1 for taking sides, this YTMND should've been dedicated to mocking all propaganda
October 16th, 2006
(0)
It's not propaganda really. It's telling the truth. They are socialists. I find it funny.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
+5 cause Korf and zakmagnus are idiots -1 for politics. "In Soviet Russia, car drives you!"
October 17th, 2006
(0)
lol lots of text ^
October 17th, 2006
(0)
5'd for the Truth. I used to be a Republican, I hate both sides equally.
October 17th, 2006
(0)
"Democrats are actually moderate conservatives im my opinion." hmm lets see... abortion on demand ? open borders with mexico? raising taxes? large bloated government? NO PLAN ( find me a stated plan in words from one dempcrat and i will sponsor your site) for if they win in 06/08? weak on defense? weak on national security? i dont thnk i need to go on.
October 17th, 2006
(0)
sponsored a site nobody cared about just to try and get people raged. wow, you suck. also, i must point out the hilarious irony that Damon Albarn (Gorillaz' leader) is very very liberal, as in truly hippie level liberal. way to co-opt.
October 17th, 2006
(0)
finally, just so people know who you're dealing with here - this Texaggie is a guy who openly stated belief in the Swiftboat Vets. now theres an opinion you can trust, lol.
October 17th, 2006
(0)
Why are you obsessed with the Swiftboat vets? The only reason they were pertinent was that they did not support Kerry, a soldier with whom they served. I don't care about if Kerry really shot some wussy in the back, or front. The man was running for the most powerful position in the world. It's quite relevant how his own platoon from Viet Nam felt about how he would serve as a leader. All that matters is they did not support him. And why should they, after how he lied about soldiers and their actions?
October 17th, 2006
(0)
Idiot.
October 18th, 2006
(0)
since you mentioned it, only Steve Gardner actually served on Kerrys boat. that youd think they are his own platoon shows how you'd swallow any old sh*t so long as it supports a position you want to take.
October 18th, 2006
(0)
Well, I don't know why I would expect a liberal to know military terms. So I'll just let your own statement embarrass yourself for me.
October 18th, 2006
(0)
BTW, what is it that I should have said about the Swift Boat Vets? "Well this is just a dirty political trick, Kerry represented himself as a soldier very well." ?? Why don't I just think that Jane Fonda was a patriot as well? Why you are obsessed with a pointless little nothing is quite entertaining.
October 18th, 2006
(0)
Sitsu, what specifically were the swiftboat vets wrong about?
October 18th, 2006
(0)
^You don't know anything.
October 18th, 2006
(0)
lolfail.
October 19th, 2006
(0)
I like how the right-wing doesn't need to connect their points with fact or example or research, they just spout off their talking points and people go, "Yeah, yeah!" Lame.
October 19th, 2006
(0)
So you wish to argue that democrats are socialists? That they don't want to raise taxes? That they don't want national healthcare? That they aren't against privatization? Ok, go ahead.
October 19th, 2006
(0)
BRILLIANT
October 21st, 2006
(0)
ROCKS!!!!
October 21st, 2006
(0)
Oh my God, I'm tired of propaganda YTMNDs. This site isn't the place for this stuff. For the record, I'm not picking on your because of your political beliefs. I would've 1'd this if you were making an anti-Republican site. Although, it figures that rambling tripe like this would come from an Aggie. It's hard to get a well-rounded world view in a cesspool like College Station.
October 21st, 2006
(0)
Stunningly well done.
October 21st, 2006
(0)
Refute the facts and someone might actually respect you..... until then STFU UNCLE Lemming
October 21st, 2006
(0)
I thought it was funny. You might like this also: http://politics.ytmnd.com/ I, and the other 14 libertarians in this country, thank you. ;-)
October 21st, 2006
(0)
5'd for an Aggie
(0)
Ah yes, Democrats take your money and give it to others, and Republicans take your money and buy a yacht.
October 21st, 2006
(0)
Hmm. I recall it being a democrat who was found with 100k hidden in his freezer. Course that was campaign money. Anyways, true conservatives are against income tax, and any other unnecessary tax. How do we fund all these social government programs? We don't. They are unconstitutional, and the federal government has no business running them.
October 22nd, 2006
(0)
"How do we fund all these social government programs? We don't. They are unconstitutional, and the federal government has no business running them." Apparently the Supreme Court is either wrong or incompetent, either of which don't bode well for our country. Also, barring ammendments made well after the constitution was the basis of our government, the constitution allowed slavery. Not exactly a shining moral standard. Also texaggie is a f*cking clown.
October 22nd, 2006
(0)
yeah, good argument. F*CK YOU, STEAL FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR!!!! LET'S ALL BE 5 YEAR OLD INTELLECTUALS!!!!
October 22nd, 2006
(0)
And what is Texaggie's answer? Slash taxes to the rich and the megacorporations sending our labor overseas. Then use remaining tax money to give kickbacks to said companies, because of course, whatever is good for the corporations, is good for Americans. Even though fewer and fewer actually employ Americans. And even though none of them need the pork we stuff their bottomless gullets with.
October 22nd, 2006
(0)
There is also an interesting parallel to be drawn between the communism you see lurking around every corner and the form of government it seems you support. Under a Plutocracy (which is what you seem to advocate) the poor can work as hard as they please and never become more successful than their parents- or very rarely so. A select few, the Power Elite, wield the vast majority of funds, property and power to influence the masses. That doesn't sound at ALL like communism, does it?
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
You are blind sir. And sadly a large portion of our country is, because of idiots like the democrat party. If kids would get a REAL economics education in school they would know that if they work hard they can make plenty of money. You see with a free market, we have supply and demand. If you supply something that is in demand, you will make money. However when you have a socialist government coming in and arbitrarily assigning salaries you screw up supply and demand.
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
The ignorant workers of our nation can't see the forest for the trees, and when their jobs are no longer in enough demand to merit the salaries they need, they need to go fill a demand that does. And they can do it. It's the stupid socialist liberals again that $#@ everything up by telling middle and lower class workers that they are one trick ponies, and that they NEED a socialist nanny government to take care of them or they will starve. It's all government created BS. So we keep the bastards in power.
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
I see what you did there. No, really, you entirely sidestepped my argument and went on your own tirade. At least I pulled my talking points from one of your assertions in your YTMND.
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
You seem to be someone who believes in Smith's "Invisible Hand" economics. Unfortunately, Smith has been proven wrong. An unregulated market economy is not going to regulate itself in an orderly, just fashion. Two words if you take issue with this assertion: GILDED AGE.
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
One word. AMERICA. When property rights are respected, there is no need to interfere with market prices of jobs. All you do by overpricing the pay for a job is make us less efficient. You seem to follow the idea of "let's cover our ears and eyes and just give everyone a wage that they can live with, no matter what meaningless job they do". You completely take away the mechanism to force our workforce into a demanded market.
October 23rd, 2006
(0)
You cannot use any examples from decades or centuries ago. Technology and communican enable any free American to pursue any career they so choose, and if they fill a need, they will be financially rewarded for it. If they seek a career in a field that is in low demand, how is you telling the government to tell the employer to pay them so much money going to better our economy?
October 24th, 2006
(0)
Anarion, conservatives don't believe in cutting taxes for the rich, we believe in a flat tax rate for everybody, and a low one at that.
October 25th, 2006
(0)
5'd, f*ck democrats
October 25th, 2006
(0)
I respect you Texaggie79, opinions like yours need to be heard more often, I used to go on similar rants but its exhausting trying to sway the opinion of ignorant socialists. Personally I'm a libertarian, but I vote republican. Unfortunately its a two party system, if people split their votes between the libertarians and the republicans all it does is insure a democrat victory. So, vote republican - slay this beast.
October 25th, 2006
(0)
But you don't appreciate Whistle Butt humor????!?!?!?!?!?
October 26th, 2006
(0)
LOL I see sitsu got asshurt again by something truthful about his sorry excuse for a political party. LOL @ tha nub libz
October 27th, 2006
(0)
lol, another "libertarian" that somehow sprung up over the last six years. fail.
November 1st, 2006
(0)
say no to communism kids!
November 1st, 2006
(0)
No. That's what conservatives promise, not what they deliver, for the most part. What's more, they cut taxes repeatedly and spend without thought to who is going to pay the tab. Why? Because they know when they drive us deep enough into debt, they can just step aside and let the Dems/Libs raise taxes and take the fall for them. Their political philosophy is the epitome of irresponsibility.
November 1st, 2006
(0)
I find it ironic that the fringe of Socialism is Communism, and the fringe of Libertarianism is Plutocracy, or even Anarchy, yet Libertarians pretend to be infinitely superior to socialists. You would rather live under one of the latter two than Communism? I would opt out of all three myself. But you already know what you want to think, and will ignore whatever truth you find in my arguments. So. HEY EVERYONE, LET'S GO VOTE FROM OUR WALLETS!
November 1st, 2006
(0)
Anarion, so you fully admit that you are a simple dolt who cannot possibly survive in this world without the nanny government supporting your dumb ass?
November 1st, 2006
(0)
Oh holy sh*t you're a libertarian no wonder you're so f*cked up.
November 2nd, 2006
(0)
Divert the subject more, Tex. Don't worry. I understand you don't want to argue issues on their merits.
November 2nd, 2006
(0)
I'm right here baby. What do you want to discuss? How selfish action has led to our nation being the most innovative nation to exist? How capitalism has ensured our high standard of living? How any American citizen is fully able to be as rich as they wish?
November 4th, 2006
(0)
Subjective claims. And give the Horatio Alger crap ("Anyone can be as rich as they want!!1") a rest. Statistics show that in the past few decades, and especially recently, financial mobility has dwindled even more in the U.S. Meaning, it's harder to get rich. Hard work equals wealth? Tell that to the lifers at a meat-packing plant. Or one of the few automobile plants left stateside. A good deal of becoming wealthy is initiative, lack of things to lose, and LUCK.
November 4th, 2006
(0)
RED STATES FTW!
November 4th, 2006
(0)
If you work hard, and are educated in how to market yourself, you can become quite rich. I have chem engineers, programing project managers, electrical engeneers in my close family. The richest of them all is a truck driver. He has no college degree. He has been driving 18 wheelers since he was 18. He now owns his own truck and picks his hauls. He works longer hours then everyone else, but he still makes more money. A truck driver that can make over 150k a year without owning his own company.
November 4th, 2006
(0)
And he's not an abnormality. People just have to know how to make companies compete for them. Know how to make themselves marketable. If hard work and dedication is all you have, you can still make it.
November 8th, 2006
(0)
*Counterstrike Announcer* Democrats win.
November 8th, 2006
(0)
The site told me to vote dem, so I will.
November 22nd, 2006
(0)
...
May 11th, 2007
(0)
1 for obvious reasons
May 11th, 2007
(-1)
I mean seriously, there are no socialists in congress. If there were, this world would be a better place. Both dems and republicans are greedy capitalist parties that only protect our rights so long as they line their pockets. I just don't know where to start with you. All I have to say is please learn about what communism actually is (I suggest from somewhere that isn't the von mises institute or fascist party of america). Democrats are dispicable, as are the republicans. Libertarians? They're utopians
May 20th, 2007
(0)
Libertarianism will bring happiness to any who wish to work for it. Communism and Socialism will bring misery to everyone as proven country after country after country. Libertarianism looks at rights. Those self evident rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Communism and Socialism look at enslavement through what they perceive as rights, however those so called "rights" enslave others. One has no right to someone else's money or time.
June 14th, 2007
(0)
Libertarianism will only bring misery for working people. No government regulation in business? That's regression! People have worked hard and died just to achieve the 8 hour work day, if libertarians gain control we can all say hello to corporate slavery. I understand your misconceptions of socialism, all americans have been brainwashed to believe the same stereotypes. In truth, communism is the liberation of everyone from hierarchy and wage slavery. You talk about communism taking away money...
June 14th, 2007
(0)
when in truth under communism you will receive full ownership of your labor and will not have to worry about some greedy capitalist profiting off of your labor. The money that is distributed is taken out of taxes just as the money is now, except this money will go towards human needs. Your libertarianism is really just pure unregulated capitalism and nothing more. You may as well advocate regressing into feudalism.
June 15th, 2007
(0)
Human needs LMAO you are pathetic. You want to sit at home and earn off of the working people don't you. Be truthful here, we already know it. We are a nation founded on liberty and civil rights. You have no right to the money I earn through whatever means, so long as it is legal. You have no right to anyone's labor. That is what you advocate, a collective ownership of everyone's labor. So we all share in the misery. The pursuit of happiness can only be successful if you have FULL ownership of your property
June 15th, 2007
(0)
Happiness comes from true liberty. True ownership. Knowing that if you work harder than your neighbor you will profit more than he. That is something communism denies us. Wealth for our hard work. And that, sir, is what drives us as the most innovative, productive, fastest progressing country to ever exist on this planet. If I can't live in a country where a man with a great idea and hard work can't become a billionaire, I don't want to live at all. Not that I would ever make more than 6 figures at the most
May 23rd, 2007
(0)
see in many cases they're not "working their *ss off" for SH*T. seriously, once one person in your immediate family gets rich, you can invest your way to death. and so can your kids, and their kids, and their kids. Do you honestly think paris hilton deserves as much money as someone who actually comes from nothing (or at least less than FILTHY F*CKING RICH), like (even though i hate them all) Oprah, or Britney Spears, just because she was able to sit on her ass? SHE WILL INHERIT MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER MAKE
May 23rd, 2007
(0)
remember that last sentence and then try to peddle this bullsh*t to me. Communism isn't perfect, but it's better than the clusterf*ck we've got going now. And if public education was MORE communistic it'd work. At a state (or even national) level, distribute education dollars equally among schools (with variations based on elementary, middle, and high schools). Then we can finally ACTUALLY level the playing field, and get rid of the travesty that is Affirmative action. Seriously, f*ck you yuppie.
June 15th, 2007
(0)
What #@$#@ing right is it of yours to say what Paris' Parents or grandparents do with the money they earned? How $%#ing dare you insinuate that you should have a say in what happens to money that you did not raise! Money (representative of products and services in our market) is a property that we own. Are you #@$%ing trying to tell me that Paris' Parents can't do whatever the hell they want with that money? I bet you were one of those "time out" kids. Coddled and made to think that life has to be fair.
June 15th, 2007
(0)
And no public education system would EVER work. Simply because it is ran by government, and government 100% of the time will always be corrupt. The private market could easily handle our nation's education needs. Private charities as well as charitable schools would provide for the kids who's parents can't afford their education. Charity belongs in the private sector where we can control them by our money and who gets it. A libertarian country would be 100 fold more charitable than a socialist one.
June 1st, 2007
(0)
Indeed.
July 6th, 2007
(0)
win
September 8th, 2007
(0)
Why is daddy a Republican? Because he hates f*ggots and n*gg*rs. LOL 5 stars.