The Democraps are Class Warfare Socialists

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Pabst, Jan 31, 2004.

  1. Pabst


    Cavuto was kind. I'd take a shot at Kerry. Most of us don't marry our late freind's $500mil widow.

    What a pain in the class!
    by: Neil Cavuto
    January 31, 2004: They call it class warfare. For the life of me, I don't know why.

    There's nothing classy about pitting one group of people against another.

    There's nothing classy about telling the rich in this country that their gains are somehow ill-gotten.

    There's nothing classy about saying the rich get back more money but never saying boo about the simple fact they pay more money -- a lot more money.

    And there's nothing classy about lying. Because truth be told, this isn't about us and what we're paying. It's about the government and what it's keeping.

    Some people really like the government, trust the government and want to give more money to the government. I am not in that camp. I am in the camp that says I'd much sooner trust you with your money than any bureaucrat with your money.

    But it's more fundamental than that. The reason why I find myself throwing things at the television every time I hear Democratic candidates speak is that they all but say they hate rich people. Rich people are greedy. Rich people are selfish. Rich people don't deserve a break.

    Well, give me a break! Look, I've known rich people who were fools and poorer people who were fools. Trust me on this one, charlatans know no pedigree, and decency knows no salary range. You can make a lot of money and have zero scruples or make no money and have no scruples.

    But I'll tell you this: Most rich people I've known are good, hard-working, start-from-scratch people. Contrary to the impression that they've somehow come into this world with silver spoons in their mouths, government statistics show the vast majority of John Kerry's targeted $200,000-and-over crowd is self-made. If they have a silver spoon, they bought it with their own money and their own sweat.

    You know, not once in my life has a poor person hired me. Rich guys, or at least richer guys, did. Trust me, they weren't all saints, but all the ones I've known were willing to give this Italian-Irish kid from working-class roots a chance . . . whether it be scooping ice cream in a shop or churning out perfume in a factory.

    Poor people get their breaks from rich people. The government can hand out a check. But the rich guy makes an investment. There's a fundamental difference here that marks the very essence of capitalism. The best way out of the gutter isn't a payment from a bureaucrat but an opportunity from a businessman.

    The class of our system of government is that it doesn't distinguish between classes at all. All can share in the American dream if they toil long enough and sacrifice enough. Some have neither the appetite nor work ethic to bother with this, but that doesn't mean we abuse those who do.

    Only in America can we turn on those who made this country great and tear them down precisely because they are. Look, I'm not saying we have to all shout a big thank you, but they're due a hell of a lot more than a screw you!

    There's nothing classy in that argument, just as there's nothing classy in saying that the rich don't already more than foot the bill. The top 1 percent of wage-earners in this country account for more than a third of the taxes collected in this country. The top 5 percent pay more than half. If that's getting off lightly, what's considered getting hosed?

    You make more in this country. You pay more in this country. It was that way before the president's tax cuts. It's been that way since the president's tax cuts. It's amazing to me that bureaucrats who suck off the system are bashing the guys who give 'em the milk!

    That's the real class story.

    Pity there's not a politician with the class to report it.

    ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc
  2. cdbern


    Thanks for the thread.

    The real issue in America isn't between Democrats and Republicans, its between Socialists and Capitalists.
  3. This class warfare business is something that has troubled me for a long time. If a politician was constantly saying blacks get too much money from the government, blacks commit too many crimes, the government is favoring blacks over everyone else, etc etc he would be instantly criticized across the land as a racist. Yet these socialists can make the same arguments based on income status and it's somehow acceptable.

    I recall when Clinton was trying to turn the country against Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators. His argument was that their constant bashing encouraged unstable people to resort to violence. The gay activists make the same argument--criticsim of gays or the gay agenda encourages violence. Why isn't the same true with respect to class warfare? Doesn't that have the potential to set off real warfare, riots, etc?

    One of the most important protections in our Constitution is the protection of property rights. When politicians are eager to undermine that protection, you can be sure they will not be shy about undermining other rights as well.
  4. Most of the time I have to turn the channel when Cavuto gets going, but this was a true gem. Very well stated and insightful...
  5. Pabst; you know I like you and I respect your opinions whether you are in agreement with me or not.

    But when you post something like this, you really confuse me. I mean I KNOW FOR A FACT that you are a bright and insightful guy. So how is it possible for you to take a thing like this that was written for the sole purpose of entertainment and put it in a context where you appear to be trying to demonstrate that this is actually how people feel. Cavuto doesn't really feel this way. You don't really feel this way. So what is the point of posting a tongue in cheek rant as if it were meant to be taken seriously?

    I mean really!!! Democrats "hate rich people"?

    I know Cavuto was just trying to do his "politics for fun and profit" rant. It is how he earns his pay. And you know it too. So why, of all the things you could have used to make another "them against us" kind of post would you choose this? I mean we all get it. Fox News is comic relief. Divisive mudslinging is "in" to a degree greater than ever. We know this already.

    So why fan those flames? What is the intent? Where is the up-side? What do you expect to accomplish?

    Here's an essay by a high school junior. Maybe the ditto heads should be required to listen to what is being said by the "loyal opposition" about how things are today in politics. Really kind of sad the conservative Rush and Anne type fans take what they listen to so seriously. I mean it's supposed to be entertainment. Not "class warfare". But it seems now that generally it is taken VERY seriously by the right wing voters who don't even understand how their interests are so completely ignored by the Republican politicians they so adore. The kid that wrote this is most likely not old enough to even vote. Yet clearly he has a better grasp of the current political climate than the majority of those who nod their heads in approval of statements like Cavuto's which are intentionally made to stir up dissent and have no connection with reality. I KNOW you can see this. So again, why quote something just to fan flames that don't need to be fanned?



    The Great Divider
    January 31, 2004
    By Bryan M. Russell

    When George W. Bush ascended to the Presidency he pledged to unite Americans together regardless of their party affiliations. In the nearly four years of his presidency Bush has done the exact opposite. Because of his arrogant foreign policy, ridiculous domestic policy, and complete and utter disregard for the environment, Bush has caused this nation to become bitterly divided, something we haven’t seen since the Vietnam War.

    The bitter division Bush has created within our country during his tenure as President culminated in this year’s State of the Union address, which showed a very divided Congress, with Republicans applauding and cheering for everything that came out of the President’s mouth, while the Democrats stayed in their seats and grimaced. Right wingers in this country parallel many of the Republicans in Congress. Bush is allowing people’s constitutional rights to be thrown out the window by installing the Patriot Act? They stand and applaud. Bush is trying to weaken the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and attack the environment in every way possible? They cheer louder. They hear that the President has contributed to the loss of 3 million jobs in his short tenure and has moved many more to places like China and India and they shout for joy. Perhaps the real problem in our great division is the fact that conservatives rarely take off their Bush-blinders for a moment and try to see how horribly this administration has failed us, as Americans, in a variety of categories. I am thankful that my fellow Democrats, many Independents, and quite a few fed-up Republicans have been able to open their eyes and see George W. Bush for what he really is.

    Bush has failed us, the American people, in many ways. The first, and probably the most notable failure was the war in Iraq. We were told that the reason our troops would be invading Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use on his enemies, including us. Many Americans, including myself, heard these dangers and quickly supported the war, until a few months later when the WMD were still unable to be found. Now, inspectors have given up hope of finding any WMD; they are simply not there. So basically, the Bush campaign greatly exaggerated the threat of Iraq and its weapons program and lied to the American people to enhance his own agenda and personal vendetta to capture Saddam Hussein. Now the administration has switched the focus of Iraq, to “capturing Saddam Hussein, who was a really bad guy”, when the original focus was disabling the WMD that Hussein was supposedly very anxious to use against us. There are many “bad guys” in the world, so I guess since we go around spending billions of dollars per country rescuing poor souls from “bad guys” we should just ignore the real “bad guys” who crashed into our buildings and killed thousands of our countrymen. This is exactly what the Bush administration is doing. There is a difference between a possible threat (Hussein) and an actual threat (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda). The logical progression would be to disable Bin Laden and Al Qaeda completely first and then proceed, with the help of the United Nations and other nations, to Saddam Hussein. But you can’t count on George W. Bush to think logically.

    George W. Bush’s arrogant foreign policy has alienated us from nearly every other nation in the world. To Bush, it’s “us against them”, Americans versus every Muslim on the face of the planet. Plus he showed an utter disregard for the help of other countries and the United Nations, instead plunging us into war without a set plan to help restore Iraq after America had overthrown the regime. Bush’s policies here at home are also highly questionable. Millions of jobs have been lost since Bush took office and his recent pardon for illegal immigrants has many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, outraged. Bush likes to act like he is tough on national security, yet he proposed opening up our borders and dressed it up as a worker program. If Bush’s twin daughters went to school in Brownsville instead of New Haven and Austin, I doubt he would even consider this program. Yet, Bush is content to live in his middle of WASP-ville ranch in Crawford and doesn’t really feel like venturing anywhere near the border to see what life there is like on a daily basis. This program is also a slap in the face to immigrants who actually worked and came to this country legally.

    The third issue many Americans are divided on involves the environment. George W. Bush will be remembered as the worst American President on environmental issues in the history of our country. Since he came into office, he’s looked out for his buddies in big business and attacked every single bit of environmental legislation ever passed. He proposed reshaping the Clean Air Act so it would allow polluting companies more loopholes for their emissions standards and has attacked the Clean Water Act, proposing to cut back from looking out for our non-navigable rivers and streams, which would allow polluters to have leeway into our nation’s isolated wetlands. Bush called his redone Clean Air Act plan the “Clear Skies Initiative” once again misleading the American people. Then again, perhaps letting power plants triple their toxic mercury emissions and double their sulfur emissions into the atmosphere is his idea of a “clear sky.”(Let us not forget that Houston became the nation’s most polluted city in 1999 and 2000 under a certain Texas governor’s watch) Bush also helped out his big industry pals by encouraging mountain top removal mining in Appalachia and other areas around the country. This process would allow big mining companies to reduce their waste cleanup costs greatly by simply blowing off the tops of mountains and dumping the millions of tons of waste and rock into streams and rivers below. Previously, the companies had to remain a certain number of feet away from the rivers, yet Bush wants the mining companies to simply dump all of the waste right into the rivers, reducing costs and terminating the waterway’s flow completely.

    This country will remain divided until we can find a President who doesn’t cater to one side and alienate the other entirely. What America needs is a President who will build one America, not two separate entities within America. This nation needs a President who will stand up for people who keep losing jobs every single day. This nation needs a President who will strive to protect the constitutional rights of Americans from all walks of life, from all races, belief systems, backgrounds, and sexual orientations. We need a President who will earn the respect of other nations across the globe, not shun them for personal interests. For the sake of America, let’s elect someone in 2004 who can unite us and not divide us.

    Bryan M. Russell is a junior in high school who is also a freelance political and sports writer. Send him your questions and comments at
  6. Maverick74



    I'm going to steal a line from John Stossel here. "Give me a break!"

    Seriously man, who the hell are you to know what Neil Cavuto meant to say or what Pabst meant to say. I watch Cavuto a lot and have a lot of respect for him both as a journalist and as a person. I also applaud his lifelong battle with Multiple Sclerosis. And I can tell you that he meant every word that he said.

    And thanks for posting that liberal essay. Yeah we get it, your a liberal. Enough already. I thought Cavuto's essay was right on and really hit the mark. I could not have said it better myself.

    And stop blaming the right for dividing society up. It's been the democrats that have been doing this for years. Rich vs poor, white vs black, blah blah blah.

    I am so sick of listening to these democratic presidential candidates talk about the rich this and the rich that. They blame everything on the rich people. What they don't talk about is how many risks those rich people had to take to get rich, or the sacrifices they made, or the things they had to give up in life, the hard work, the perseverance. No, all you hear are the rich are to blame for everything. Tax cuts for the rich, big evil corporations, corporate america, big evil drug companies. Man enough already.

    The democrats have been the biggest drug dealers in this country. Only the drug they are selling is money, the most powerful drug there is. They promise it to the poor, to the unions, to the teachers, to the minorities, to everyone. They don't teach self preservation. They don't teach about accountability, they don't teach about supporting yourself. It's all about what they can take form those have a lot of something and give to those that have very little of something. That is called stealing!

    Yet everyone of these presidential hopefuls gives a loud speech about taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor and everyone cheers like all of their problems will be solved. It's sickening to watch that. If you want to improve your life, you need to do it yourself, don't turn to the government. All the government does is ruin everything they touch, so why would you want them having control over your life?

    And stop slandering Fox news. They are no more an entertainment network then CNN is. Fine, you disagree with their slant on things. Thats your right as a liberal, but stop attacking that network. for years in this country we were fed one half of the story and we never had an alternative. Today we do, and your pissed that someone is finally talking about the other side of the coin. Well, too bad. Now people can hear both sides and determine for themselves who to believe. If the network ratings are anything to go by, I would say Fox news is kicking CNN's ass!!!!! The people have voted and they want Fox news over CNN! Deal with it!
  7. cdbern


    Oh that life were as simple as a 16 yr old thinks it is.

    Wonder if he'll ever ask real questions and have an independent thought.

    Garbage in, garbage out.
  8. Maverick,

    Look, maybe I was out of line making the assumption that Cavuto wasn't as serious as you seem to be about this "class warfare" stuff. If you really believe that Democrats hate rich people, what can I say? Believe what you will.

    However, I will stand by MY belief that any reasonable person would think this comment was made with more of a purpose to entertain than to really preach his true beliefs.

    And no, I don't think Pabst believes this any more than I do. Or Cavuto does. Or Rush Limbaugh, or really anyone.

    But obviously I would be wrong if I were to assume you yourself did not believe that Democrats hate rich people. From your post, clearly you DO believe that.

    Does it make sense to me? No. But neither does the tone of anger you managed in that post make sense to me.

    You really DO seem to feel this is a struggle of one side of politics against the other.

    Me....I don't feel that way. I may be deluding myself, but I truly believe we are all Americans first. What political party we are registered with is FAR FAR behind our primary belief in America and it's freedoms and the Constitution.

    You lambaste me for making an assumption of how Cavuto feels in his heart. Or how I think Pabst feels too. Yet there you are telling ME how I feel. You tell me I am a liberal. You tell me I don't like that Fox News is slanted to the right. You say in your way that I am a fan of CNN.

    The truth of the matter is I prefer to watch Fox over CNN. The truth of the matter is I have voted for Republican candidates and Democrat candidates both.

    For the thousandth time, I repeat: I do NOT see things in black and white. I DO NOT vote a party line. I DO NOT believe in every Republican or every Democratic cause. Or every "liberal" or every "conservative" cause.

    Do I consider myself more "progressive" than "regressive"? Yeah, I do. But don't make assumptions about how I feel about every issue. That is not how my brain works.

    And if I believe that the hard core political pundits on BOTH SIDES of the "right/left" (now very deep) line in the sand are saying what they say often more for entertainment value, I am entitled to believe that. And in some instances, I KNOW it is true. This is a business for these people.

    So call me what you want. I don't and haven't called anyone an "asshole" or a "prick" because I disagree with their political beliefs. But I have been called these things. And the funny thing is, I don't know exactly what it is that I ever said that would stir up such emotion.

    You say that the "liberals" or Democrats (sorry...I don't feel like re-reading exactly which you referred to) were to blame for the divisiveness in today's political climate. May I ask how you came to this conclusion?

    It must be hard to be so angry and make clear headed observations. I envy you your ability to be so angry and so level headed at the same time.

    OK, I don't want you to blow a gasket. I know you have started innumerable threads to yell from the rooftops how GWB is going to have a cakewalk to a re-election. And now that things are unraveling for him, I understand that you take this very personally. I just don't understand why.

    As for what I said about those who I can't really believe truly feel that Democrats "hate the rich".....what can I say? Should I say I was wrong? Democrats indeed do "hate the rich"? OK, if it makes you happy, I will say it...DEMOCRATS HATE THE RICH!

    OK? Are we square now? Buffet hates the rich. The Kennedys hate the rich. Kerry hates the rich. I hate the rich. Everyone I know who is a rich Democrat is a self - loathing mental case. That is the only reasonable explanation.

    Meanwhile, please, if you don't mind, go back and read what I have said here on ET and explain to me exactly what it was I said that convinced you that I am a "liberal" by your definition.

    And while you are at it, tell me and tell us all exactly why there is so much anger. And most of all, explain to us why you believe that the divisiveness in American politics today is the fault of the Democratic Party. And how the Republican Party is the Party of cooperation while the Democratic Party is the party of bitterness. And of course the party of the less patriotic.

    Mav, my man.....lighten up! There is NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE between the two parties. Just because someone says that the Republicans are capitalists and the Democrats are socialists, that does NOT MAKE IT SO!!!!

    And as for patriotism....this is not a good argument right now for your side of the debate. Where was Kerry during Vietnam? Where was Dubya?

    Like I said in another post....the upcoming election looked like a non - contest a year ago. But now, I truly believe that GWB has dug himself into a hole that will ultimately cause him to lose the election.

    And this is all on top of what we all already knew about the man yet forgave him the last time. This time, the American public is not going to be so forgiving. (IMO).

    It isn't that whoever the Democrats finally nominate will necessarily win on merit or platform or charisma. It is that GWB will lose. He has done everything possible to go from a world hero in Sept. of 2001 to a very beatable also-ran in just two years and change.

    What comes out of these 9/11 hearings, I truly believe will be his final undoing. Just a gut feeling.

    I of course can be wrong...this is just my take on the situation now. We will see what happens.

  9. Maverick74


  10. Mav, my man....gotta run. So even though I loved your post and would have a lot of fun doing exactly what you did....go line by line and counter each statement, I can't due it due to time constraints. So I will only address three quick points.

    Maybe we can pick this up where we left of at another time. Certainly it is more fun and more thought stimulating to debate you, AAA, Hapaboy and Pabst because I respect all of you, than to argue with the psychotic Max401 who cannot make a post without bringing me into it (last I looked it was in the Atkins diet thread in which I never even participated).

    So now that I have opened that can of worms, and fully expect Max to intrude here, since he monitors my every word, I will make my three observations, and then go and try and enjoy a nice Saturday evening dinner with my family. And I hope you will be doing the same.

    So I will just edit out all of your post except for the three issues I wish to address.

    Here we go:

    No, I have not heard of "Clinton Republicans". But I HAVE heard of "Kennedy" Republicans. And "Roosevelt Republicans". Details now? Not enough time. Let;s just say that GWB's politics are closer to JFK's than they are to; let's say Barry Goldwater's.

    Chris Matthews as a media guy is a great example of what I would call a "Kennedy Republican". And of course the entire Republican party has adopted Social Security as a pet issue. Whereas 50 years ago, they considered Roosevelt a socialist at best. Particularly the right wing of the party. Now even they are essentially in the fold (although they do want to privatize SS).

    Divisiveness......You mentioned several "divisive" issues. Among them "pro-choice". Good effort. Fine example. Who bombs abortion clinics? What is the LAW? Where is the violent divisiveness coming from? And religion? What is the LAW in regards to this issue?

    And finally, due to the work my wife is involved in, I know or have met virtually all the very richest people in Palm Beach, one of the wealthiest communities on the planet. As far as I can tell, more of them vote Democrat than Republican. Sorry to be the bearer of this sad news.

    Have a great weekend. And root for the Patriots!!!!! They are indeed the team with the better name. Don't you agree?

    #10     Jan 31, 2004