Socialism: Its evil permeates American society

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 1/12/03 | David P. Shreiner

[Jean S]

A conservative preacher once told me he thought "a little socialism was good." I was dumbfounded. He did not realize this was tantamount to saying a little evil is good.

In the early 1900s socialism was regarded as a crazy idea invented by revolutionaries and Marxists to disrupt civilization and bring down governments. But today the majority of Americans behave as socialists

[wimpycat]

And what's with your use of the word "we"? Are you royal? Do you have a split personality?

[dtel]

It just doesn't wash with me, especially given that circumstance are growing ever more extreme and will continue to do so with manufacturing going overseas and the amount of people rushing unhindered into the country expecting something for the trip. Compassion has it's place, but so does responsibility.

Things are growing more extreme, but the genie is out of the bottle. It can't be replaced.
It doesn't really speak to the voters but to the VOTEES, that the problem is reaching the magnitude it is.
Look at the Ga. governor(R), and his tax proposals. This maggot ran on a tax cut agenda and then wants to tax everything and make everybody healthir, wealthier and wiser.
Instead of fighting each other, (and I mean that nicely to all involved) we need to get people in office, no matter what the letter after their name, who will do the "right thing" and that will offend all equally, or we are doomed to repeat history.
We ARE a socialist utopia, now we are just bickering to what degree and who/what caused it.
Might as well catch a fart and paint it green, for all the good this will accomplish.

[NMC EXP]

From: Dr. Deth's archives 8/31/01

Excellent analysis.

Regards

J.R.

[dtel]

Was this received any better then?
Pretty accurate synopsis.
Don't think the pols didn't pander to this instinct in all of us. We bring it on ourselves by buying into their snakeoil.
We have met the enemy and it is us.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is the problem isn't it. No matter if they have a D or an R in front of their name they end up being bad for the country, liars, corrupt, and the only interest they have is self interest.

I have never voted for a Demoncrat, never will. For a politician to agree to be a democrat means he has come from the bottom of the bucket already. You can not be a democrat and be a responsible American. The more Republicans go left the lower they sink in that same bucket.

I know who the best man for the job of President is and I will write him in no matter if he agrees to run or not. It certainly can't hurt anything that isn't already damaged beyond repair. If the Republicans do a good job over the next couple of years I could change my mind and vote for them, I'll look for a reason, like, repeal of the death tax, capital gains tax, stern border and immigration controls, respect for our borders, and an end to partial birth abortion.

[Dr.Deth]

We have met the enemy and it is us.

That, sir, sums it up quite succinctly.

The one constant through all of history is human nature. If one knows human nature and history, one can take a pretty fair guess at what's to come.

[Dr.Deth]

Our federal representative distributions are determined on what basis? (Rhetorical question)

You make many generalizations about what I like, what I don't like, and what my state of mind is; all by your own assumptions, and without discussing any of the issues at hand. Would you care to post your theory why America will not be a fascist nation within our lifetime? I'm dying to critique.

[wimpycat]

I don't get involved in serious discussions with NUTS who have "issues" with women's constitutional right to vote. So feel free to critique that.

[Dr.Deth]

I critique it like this: you can't make your point on merit, so you demonize and demagogue. You are a wonderful Democrat.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[wimpycat]

The only point I'm making is that you're a complete NUT. Anybody in this day and age who laments women's suffrage is a NUT. It is self-evident to all of us non-NUTS. But that's OK, I don't expect you to understand...because you're a NUT.

[dramagirl1341]

so you are saying that women are stupid, lesser, and not as able to think as men? i'm not a feminist, but that is stereotyping women. it's like saying that men are ignorant, macho males who drink beer and watch football all day. look at all the females on freerepublic... do they all sound like dumb blondes to you, who are so easily lead to believe anything?

[dtel]

If all you had to do was roll over and grab a big ole teat and suck away, what incentive is there?
If this option had not been introduced, probably about fifty years after the Constitution was signed IMHO, alright a bit cynical.
It didn't get roots until after the War of The States, you had to be pretty damn dedicated to do that, and the dawn of big central government. FDR fertilized it and LBJ sowed it.
Now everybody is eating the dwindling fruits.
The smart man is tilling and sowing the soil and preparing to grow his own.
Disclaimer
Of course, some have called me a doom and gloomer, I prefer to look at it as being self-sufficient.
Ya'll have fun.

[Dr.Deth]

so you are saying that women are stupid, lesser, and not as able to think as men?

Not at all. Women think differently than men, and have different core needs and values. This difference was never considered while designing our Constitution, and the introduction of this X-factor has led to unintended consequences. Through arguments posted above, I posit that it was at least a key contributing factor to the rise of American Socialism.

Men and women were not [created/evolved] to be equals, but to complement and complete one another. This is not to imply one is the lesser and one is the greater. Women have instincts to nurture, which should not be a chief function of government - but which is what we've come to. The mass of extra-Constitutional social programs, and the corresponding crushing tax burden is a testament to the power of that instinct.

There were bound to be unintended consequences of not just suffrage, but also (and perhaps as damaging) of a popularly elected Senate, and the income tax levy. With the introduction of these three factors, I believe that the rise of Socialism was almost inevitable.

This may be reflexively dismissed by some as kookery, but I feel there is enough empirical evidence to at least present the hypothesis for discussion.

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[TLBSHOW]

PING

[dcwusmc]

Bump for discussion!