Posted on 05/10/2004 7:53:09 PM PDT by writer33
"Where do you get that idea?" See how this sentence standing alone doesn't make sense.
You're taking bits and pieces of sentences and letting them stand alone. When I write something, much like this, they are all integral parts of a paragraph and an essay, building to one final climax.
Now, since we've brushed up on that, you're response really doesn't make any sense. It's the whole picture that has to be absorbed. Not one sentence here or there.
Let's take this first paragraph for example.
"You're taking bits and pieces of sentences and letting them stand alone."
This sentence, alone, doesn't make much sense to anyone else other than you. So, in a sense, its pointless to pick out one or two sentences to just be argumentative on moot little points.
And yes, George Washington kicked out socialist tyranny. If it walks like a socialist, looks like a socialist, then it probably is a socialist.
"That certainly was the opinion of Imperial Japan."
As far as acting preemptively, it has been and will continue to be a good idea. Japan acted for the sake of oil resources in large part. Terrorists attack to murder and they don't understand peace treaties. And since we can't afford to wait for another 9/11, then I think we oughta act preemptively.
Nice try at ducking the question. Actually it's a simple question that you failed to answer. Military structure is a great concern to this day, witness the battles Rumsfeld has had with the likes of Shinseki and Frederick since the day he took office.
And yes, George Washington kicked out socialist tyranny. If it walks like a socialist, looks like a socialist, then it probably is a socialist.
Socialism is never mentioned in any of the writings of the Founders, and with good reason since no one had ever heard of it. Abrogation of their rights as free Englishmen is often mentioned by the Founders, and they overthrew something they knew well, a monarchy and a Parliament that denied them representation. Socialism was a new movement when it appeared in the European Revolutions of 1848 and its targets were largely the monarchs of Europe. Monarchs were hardly early socialists, even if it is entertaining to see them linked.
"Nice try at ducking the question. Actually it's a simple question that you failed to answer. Military structure is a great concern to this day, witness the battles Rumsfeld has had with the likes of Shinseki and Frederick since the day he took office.
And yes, George Washington kicked out socialist tyranny. If it walks like a socialist, looks like a socialist, then it probably is a socialist.
Socialism is never mentioned in any of the writings of the Founders, and with good reason since no one had ever heard of it. Abrogation of their rights as free Englishmen is often mentioned by the Founders, and they overthrew something they knew well, a monarchy and a Parliament that denied them representation. Socialism was a new movement when it appeared in the European Revolutions of 1848 and its targets were largely the monarchs of Europe. Monarchs were hardly early socialists, even if it is entertaining to see them linked."
Here. When I said structure of the military, I meant liberals, democrats, and conservatives mixes. I didn't mean the actual structure basis of the military. But you've totally missed the point of the essay, congratulations!
And for the Founding Fathers, the word socialism wasn't around, but it was socialist tyranny. An all powerful monarchy stripping your basic freedoms, but once again, you've missed the point of the essay. You win a cookie for creativity.
Enough said.
Socialism is about the equal distribution of property. Apparently you labor under the illusion that monarchs such as George III went about seizing property and giving it to the poor- or else you simply haven't a clue what socialism is, and apply the term witlessly to whatever strikes your fancy. I suspect the latter applies to you. Try reading up on it sometime and you perhaps won't post such clueless nonsense. Not that being educated is one of your priorities.
"Socialism is about the equal distribution of property. Apparently you labor under the illusion that monarchs such as George III went about seizing property and giving it to the poor- or else you simply haven't a clue what socialism is, and apply the term witlessly to whatever strikes your fancy. I suspect the latter applies to you. Try reading up on it sometime and you perhaps won't post such clueless nonsense. Not that being educated is one of your priorities."
I can't read. I'm far too stupid. Only educated elitist people like you can read. Of course you're right and I'll always be wrong. And people like you have no idea what REAL love of country is.
It doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact, it's better this way. I'll always know I'm inferior to people like you. So much so that I'll keep serving this great country so people like you can look down your nose at people like me.
You know what's funny. I actually love this country and everything about it and yet all you can do is cast aspersions and berate me for being some simpleton as to whether I ever want to be educated. And in this moment I realize that I am far more educated than you'll ever be.
I have a simple faith in humanity and a love of country that you'll never be able to get a grasp of. I love going to work as a simpleton, meeting Americans as a simpleton, and writing stupid, moronic things as a simpleton.
Far be it from me to challenge your superiority complex. At the end of the day, we still put our pants on one leg at a time. Of course, I suppose that you transcend from your lofty throne and float into yours.
But I still love you for being an American despite whether or not I may or may not be edumucated. Excuse me a moment while I spit my chaw into my empty beer can. I appreciated the debate. Thank you so much, keep participating in this great country which I love so dearly and have a great weekend.
BTTT!!!!!!!
bump!
Fellow simpleton bump !
That's old news, Tony. Von Mises disposed of socialism's claims 90 years ago. I was more interested in addressing your friend's peculiar idea that George III's reign was characterized by "socialism". Socialism is based in 'leveling' social and economic classes, and monarchies are based on aristocratic privilege.
Socialism didn't make an appearance until around 1830, and when it did it was a revolutionary movement dedicated to overthrowing the monarchs of Europe- you know, the rulers Writer 33 thinks were socialists. Maybe Writer 33 is onto something, and it was a case of socialists trying to overthrow socialists.
Nothing wrong with being ignorant, pal. Most of us are ignorant in subjects we haven't studied. I'm not too proud to learn from those who are more learned than me. That has worked for me- it keeps me from posting stupid ideas that give someone else a chance to box me around and make me look like a fool. I suppose I was a bit hard on you, because you do seem a bit excited about it. The "elitist" "superior" stuff doesn't work, it just lets me know I drew blood. Chill out, it's only online posting. You'll survive.
"The "elitist" "superior" stuff doesn't work, it just lets me know I drew blood. Chill out, it's only online posting. You'll survive."
Naa! You didn't draw blood. I was really tame.
Chris
"While I cannot speak for writer33, I think I have an idea where he's coming from.
You're quite right that socialism of the Marx/Engels mold isn't the same as a divine-right monarchy. But...to the common man, the individual citizen, the result is the same whether you live in a socialist country or under a despotic monarch. Either way, you lack freedom. Whether your "ruler" is a king supported by parasitic aristocrat minions, or a socialist premier supported by parasitic bureaucrat minions, your personal liberty is wrongly limited—and that is intolerable to an ordinary American.
Thank God our Founding Fathers realized this! Surely none of them had heard of some German weenie named Karl Marx (who as you pointed out, didn't emerge from under his rock until the 1830s) but there's no doubt they would've abhorred his idiotic ideas no less than the policies of that other German weenie George III! (Sorry...House of Hanover y'know...couldn't resist ;-)
One of the truly awesome ways God blessed this country is that He raised up such wise, godly men as our Founders, who recognized and unleashed the great potential of the common American man and woman. By codifying the liberty God gave each of us into law, America's founding heroes enabled each and every American to achieve extraordinary things. Looking back, I'd say we've done them pretty proud!"
That's what I was getting at. It was the symbolism of the lack of freedom that I was getting at. It was the symbolism of the anti-capitlist nature of King George. Placing taxes on people is not the American way. To us unedumucated simpletons that know American history implicity, socialism is inherently dangerous to our society.
And yes, King George wasn't a socialist. I knew this already, but in writing, symbolism is as important as the facts are. I wasn't way off the mark as Tony so astutely pointed out. Chiefly because to every American citizen living under King George, like socialism, they were slowly losing their freedom. It took cajones as big as bowling balls to give King George the fickle finger of fate.
I'm glad they did. It's that kind of spirit and love of country that has been passed down for 200 years. In that respect, it has become part of conservative philosophy on which I know something about. And I don't know everything. Well, almost everything. :) HA!
But thanks, Tony for aptly pointing out what I was unable to do. You're obviously more edumucated than I am. I now sit in shock and awe at my computer. :)
Sincerely,
Chris
BTTT
Here you go. Run with it.
Another sample more relevant with all the Swift Boat hullabaloo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.