America on the Verge

D

dZ

New member
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands
which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation."
-- Declaration of Independence –

These first few words from the Declaration of Independence ushered America onto a new and boldly unique
frontier…the most unique frontier in man’s on-going search for freedom. Some of the same concerns face the
patriots of today regarding freedom, resolve, separation and the future, that faced the patriots of yesterday. We
know what happened in the year1776 but what will happen in the year 2000 and beyond?

Those words of America’s new frontier, written in 1776, began to define a concept I call colonial traditionalism.
The words of our President in 1994 reveal a counter-concept I call modern liberalism--a mix of socialism and
fascism:

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights,
giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much
personal freedom. When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." – Bill Clinton, 22
March 1994 –

These words of Bill Clinton’s are diametrically opposed and radically counter to the foundation upon which this
country was based…the pre-eminence and sanctity of personal freedom. It is not only a statement descriptive of a
modern liberal philosophy that fears the people but at the same time is very representative of anti-constitutional
attitudes in America today. It also clearly shows that we are on sharply diverging paths and losing the common
ground we may have shared in previous generations. While many remain faithful to colonial traditionalism, others
are falling for and propagating the lie that is modern liberalism.

I’ve been seeing more and more examples of less and less common ground among Americans. There is a schism
that is widening into a chasm everyday as we lose our national identity and align ourselves with a variety of splinter
groups, cultures and philosophies.

When I was a kid, Americans seemed to accept and share a sense of traditional values much more so than they do
today. We seemed to have been more aware of what the American culture was and could more easily describe it or
at least know it when we saw it and identify ourselves with it. God and guns were not looked upon as political
leprosy, sexual immorality was not described as an "alternate life style", the founding fathers were not vilified as
former slave holders deserving of no respect and the constitution was revered as the foundation of our freedom
rather than a challenge for tyrants to circumvent and destroy… and we were just Americans, no hyphenations.
Today we seem to have lost that melting pot look and are now more like a mosaic of sub-cultures that feel a need
for a hyphenated identity.

We’re losing our sense of national unity that was America’s unifying force or national glue that came from sharing
a set of traditional cultural values. The glue that keeps any country unified boils down to a very few important
ingredients in my mind…a common language, a shared set of traditional cultural values upon which the country
was originally based and a sense of identity with that culture which sets its people apart from the rest of the world.
In order for any group of people to remain united, they must share a common set of values they can accept and
incorporate into their psyches as their own, are willing to live by and pass along to their children. History has
shown that when those characteristics are lost, the country soon comes unglued.

It seems to me that we are now coming unglued and polarizing into at least the two camps I mentioned whose
philosophies will never reach consensus because their fundamentals are mutually exclusive. Can such divergent
philosophies of colonial traditionalism vs. modern liberalism ever coexist in one country and under one
government? The differences between the two philosophies are stark and becoming more and more entrenched as
attitudes harden. The most basic and fundamental differences are that traditionalists believe in self-reliance,
self-determination and personal freedom, while modern liberals believe in government reliance, government control
and very limited personal freedom…for the masses. Reviewing some specific concepts of the opposing
philosophies, traditionalists believe in the former while liberals believe in the latter:

Freedom vs. control

Small government vs. big government

Independence vs. dependence

Self-reliance and personal responsibility vs. government reliance and no responsibility

Freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion

Equal opportunity vs. equal outcome

Private property vs. public property

National sovereignty vs. world government

States rights vs. federal rights

The money you earn is yours vs. the money you earn is mine

Truth counts vs. lies don’t matter

Character matters vs. image is everything

Communists are a threat vs. Communists are friendly sources of campaign contributions

Nuclear secrets are to be protected vs. nuclear secrets are to be sold

"Shall not be infringed" pertains to the right to keep and bear arms vs. pertaining to the bounds of their political
ambition and immorality.

This country is becoming so divided in basic values and polarized in philosophy that as things stand today, I can
honestly see no clear path to a reconciliation of these two opposing viewpoints. As Charley Reese, a nationally
respected and admired conservative columnist, wrote:

"When there is nothing to agree upon, then we're in big trouble. I have read a couple of scholarly articles
that speculate that it is becoming increasingly possible that the United States will break up. The general theme
is that the United States has been held together by a consensus on major issues and that this consensus is
breaking down.

Although two sides can always compromise if the basic premise of both sides is the same, two sides can never
compromise when their respective basic premises are mutually exclusive."

I agree with Charley. I see the beginnings of an American break up as increasingly more possible now than at
anytime since the Second American Revolution began in 1861.

And in a more recent column, Charley wrote:

"A friend and I were having a chat the other day, and we both agreed that the United States faces one of two
alternative futures unless we change course soon. One, it breaks apart into smaller countries or, two, it's
ruled by an openly authoritarian, central government.

Pretty gloomy forecast, I agree. Trouble is the American consensus is falling apart, and all the trends are
toward accentuating differences not assimilation. I'm not sure that Americans realize how important
assimilation and consensus are. America is a nation that is defined purely by beliefs, not by geography or
race. If people get to the point where they no longer share core beliefs, then the country will fly apart or have
to be forcibly held together by a dictatorship."

I’m that friend to whom Charley refers. We had this extended discussion over dinner at one of our favorite
restaurants not long ago and we also agreed that Clinton would love to set himself up in the role of that
dictator…that sure would cement his legacy for all time don’t you think? [Charley’s web site. You’ll want to
bookmark this one and read him every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday: http://orlandosentinel.com/columnists/ ]

Such continued coexistence would require not compromise but submission because this confrontation involves
basic and diametrically opposed principles… and I don’t cotton to compromise of principles. As I said last week,
compromise of principle is no compromise—it is surrender and traditionalists are unwilling to surrender their
principles.

"… in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -- Thomas Jefferson –

This attack on the constitution by the left that we have witnessed is clearly an attack on the country and its people
because it seeks to obliterate many of those principles and goes against the very foundation upon which we have
built and live out our lives. I see dark clouds on America’s horizon regarding unification vs. separation and it
should not surprise anyone. We faced similar trouble in the 18th and 19th centuries, so why should the 20th or 21st
be much different.

Again, as Thomas Jefferson advised in that Declaration of 1776:

"When… it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them
with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation."

I believe those causes are being unmistakably declared everyday by these opposing camps and separation is
becoming more of a real possibility than it has been at anytime in the last 140 years—America, it seems, may once
again be on the verge.

Just the view from my saddle…

The Colonel


DON'T TREAD ON ME
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/dan/eddd072100.htm
 
"...And when our rights were threatened,
The cry rose near and far --
'Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag,
that bears the single star!'"

Lyrics from the Bonnie Blue Flag
 
Here's the full lyrics and music for The Bonnie Blue Flag. I think it says a lot.
http://users.erols.com/kfraser/bonnie.htm


------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
This is why you can rarely argue succesfully with the anti-freedom mindset. They've already ceded control of thier free will to the state. They're amazed and perplexed that you wouldn't do the same. They're simply working from a different fundamental understanding of reality.

The underlying assumptions of the Socialist mindset is the mentality of the slave. How do you set an animal free that's been caged all of its life? It doesn't have the basic instincts to survive, much less thrive. Set an animal like that free, and 99 out of 100 will willingly return to the cage.
 
Jack is right about the slave.

what is incorrect in the sierratimes article is that there will be some sort of showdown against this. The fact is that we have all bought into this to some extend or another. Even amongst those most in favor of freedom (RKBA advocates, themselves a minority) only the fewest few don't think the government should take people's money to save the g*y baby whales for je**s.

I am happy that the republicans are succeeding; but simeltaneously saddened that they have shifted to the left - and heartily support expansion of federal role in education of the next generation of socialists - to do so.

Look at what we're talking about - who would go on TV and oppose an existing social program? Once it's in it's in, and you accept it.

We're ALL becoming socialists. There will be no showdown.


Battler.
 
I agree 100%, Battler.

We won't ever see the JBTs kicking in doors or blue helmets on the streets. The reality is they'll win one entitlement at a time. Case in point: right now its not a question as to whether or not the taxpayers will subsidize dope for the elderly, its just a question of which plan. All just a matter of degree, really. The Repubs have already ceded that it will have to happen (opposing it will be political suicide). As a nation we've already accepted the Socialist premise of collectivism and managed markets. Its just a matter of time.
 
Yes, but y'all presume that the socialist-entitlement-welfare state can be funded indefinitely. Taxes right now are such that both parents have to work to support a family. I know there are some exceptions, and that a lot of people scrimp and save so that a parent can stay home. It didn't used to be this way (so I'm told), and the reason is that taxes just keep going up to pay for all these goodies: free dope, free cheese, free housing, etc. etc. In spite of small taps on the brake of the socialist welfare state like the repeal of the so-called "marriage tax" the direction of tax rates in this country only head in one direction, and we all know what direction that is. My question, then, is what will happen when both parents working two jobs is not enough to support a family? Will child labor laws then be repealed to send the lazy little freeloaders to "contribute their fair share" to the tax rolls, or will U.S. society simply collapse at that point? Your guess is as good as mine. It has to do with punishing productivity to subsidize irresponsibility. When you do that, what incentive is there to be productive? We're rapidly approaching that point. When the productive disappear, either through fleeing (to where I have no idea) or simply throwing up their hands in disgust and joining the leeches, all you're left with is the leeches. What do they eat then, each other?
 
I disagree. Look at European countries. You can have WAY more welfare state and still survive.

It comes down to something you hear from socialists a lot, whether it be about your guns or your big car: "You don't NEED that".

All that socialism has to do is keep people alive and dumbed down. One may point to a Soviet collapse; but they didn't transition slowly, when the going got tough, plenty of people around had a memory of when things were better - you need a frame of reference to call things bad. Will YOUR children remember when they could buy a gun without paperwork? Will YOUR children remember past prosperity?

Aside from this, technology WILL keep things better. And more importantly, it will allow domestic threats against the state to be more readily caught (automatic surveillance GROSSLY superior to what the soviets had, and making 1984 look like a joke).

But back to the technology - if the only argument against communism is that it will make you poor, what if technology WILL keep you materially wealthy and never hungry? Do you NEED your freedom then?

The 1984 reference is not the most likely situation, the latter is, a world free of the "need" of diligent labor (people working for themselves), and consequently the "need" for freedom. THIS may be the ultimate question, with no "need" for freedom, in a state that otherwise will let you live, do you have rights?


Battler.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I disagree. Look at European countries. You can have WAY more welfare state and still survive.[/quote]

But Europeans have been bred into sheeple for so damn long they hardly even know how to question it anymore. If America takes the plunge into full fledged socialism, which they are more and more on the verge of, then we right wingers will either stand our ground or become socialists ourselves. If we stand our grounds, it is the liberals that will tear this country to pieces, they will certainly alienate some of the more right wing states, and at the very least thousands of right win protesters will march en masse on many issues. If these protests are then impeded, and protesters attacked, there will probably be war.

Gun grabbers may in the end push us to that, though I truly hope they do not. If they do though, they will be real curious why they are losing so badly (I wonder if they'll even think it's due to them not having any guns....).

This nation doesn't need war, it shouldn't even need seperated, but it needs to settle on an idea of what it means to be an American. So far million mom'ers tell you that it means you don't allow your opponents to speak. Clinton tells you the founding fathers were radicals, and we should reconsider their constitution. PETA tells you that we have to be unwilling to sacrifice anything, not even rats, for the advancement of our society.

They are telling you to become weak of body, weak of mind, and weak of spirit. Many of these people are so completely misanthropic it is just rediculous. They hate the idea you can stand among a crowd with the power to kill them all and choose not to do so, because they know they are too unstable to trust themselves with such responsibility. To some degree they are jealous of your maturity, jealous of your success, your hard work.

They are the enemy of free will, because they are petty and short sighted. Their fear of everything is so overwhelming that they would put the power into the hands of the people who talk most soothingly to them, and smile the widest, most convincing smiles. They live in terror, paranoia, and absolute unreadiness for any trouble. They fail to realize that the people who smile to them and talk to them like they are kids are the people who will use them to help themselves.

Power to the people is something some liberals have chanted from time to time, but few truly understand. Power to the people is putting power into the hands of a consensous of the population, rather than the tyranny of liars elected under showmanship and media fanfare.

Their concept of power to the people is more akin to the socialist and communist conceptions of such things. Worker unions backing the communist movements in Russia told the workers what to do, and attacked the "evil" corporations, and the richer merchant class. The people nodded along, it sounded good afterall. The unions started with good intentions and slipped into the "pitty me" attitude, demanding more and more outrageous demands, and attacking the foundations of economy. The communist movement appealed to these people who had crossed the line and gone too far. Much like how many of the worker unions put strong support being the Nazi party in Germany. Ultimately though, unions are biased, and while they have thier place, that place is not running governments. Unions can exclude those they don't like, and are not bound by nearly the number of rules their corporate counterparts are. It is this exclusivity, and singularity of purpose that creates the danger. Those that decide to disagree are removed from the organization, and when that organization happens to rule the country, that means that person is removed from the power structure of the country.

The point is that government should not be pushing specific agendas, it should only represent the consensous of the public agenda, and try to be fair to the feelings of significant minority segments that differ in opinion. It is our job, and the job of the media, to convey the feelings of the public to the government. The media fails horribly on this end though for the most part. They more often report things that they want the government to do, and report things in such a way to make it look like there is indeed more support there than there really is.

I have written so much on this subject, because it really does worry me. I have studied enough history to smell a war brewing. Discontent and hatred brewing. We even have people from PETA and Greenpeace, who claim to be pacifists, either actually attacking, or threatening to attack, other humans. Quiet storms sometimes grow into the loudest. We intellectuals, people who respect reason, must fight with every bit of history, and ever bit of logic and reason, to prove to the vast majority of apathetic Americans that the far left is out of their minds and lacking any ability to reason. We need to convince these people, for or against us, to get out and participate, to take part in debates, and to really try to understand what the issues are. When my dad was a kid, they aired the entire political convention for both parties, and everyone and their whole families usually watched them as much as possible. For or against us, we must not exclude anyone, even communists. We have to show people that we are the choice of freedom, not the gun grabbers. G.W. Bush is taking the right path. While he may not be extreme as you want, you must simply face up to the fact that America as a whole is not ready for that. When the general population is not willing to go that far, we must accept their judgement as the will of the nation. It is up to us to see Bush elected and then spend the next four years trying to reach out to the rest of America, and draw them in, and teach them that conservatism is not evil, and indeed makes more send than "liberal" politics, which only seek to rob and destroy freedom.

To site another case, I must point to the thread about how there are inflitrators among us here at the TFL. Good. Let them come, let them take their choice words from here and spin them into lies. Let them argue with us with arguments that are weak and unfounded. It is in the soft flesh of their weak arguments that we sharpen the teeth of ours. If natural selection is diminishing in the world of biology, lets bring it back into the world of politics. Lets be strong and united, and not exlusive, and then lets destroy their weak arguments with strong truths, and let the American people decide for themselves what makes more sense, FUD, or reason.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
I do not like GWB; with that said I am still voting for him.

There is very little difference between repub and socialist. We need to all get off this bandwagon that right is good, the only, the true. What is going to happen in the next four years is that repubs will win, they will cut taxes, they will not "layoff" govt workers- shrink departments etc. They will claim all of the glory for tax cuts, yet they won't shrink any of the drains responsible for those tax cuts in the first place. Deficets. Companies will still continue to sh*t on workers because they can (and should). The poor, while under the reign of socialist local govts, won't be inspired to learn to speak correctly, write, add, philosophize or work or do anything but continue to pump "feel good" into their veins.

No courage to eliminate taxes and layoff useless govt workers, no courage to say, "quit your bit*(ing and feed yourself. No courage to say "it is not the guns, it is because you can not parent yourselves out of a paper bag." No courage to tell an Indian tribe that they can go screw themselves if they think they are claiming the moon as protected sacred burial grounds. No courage to say that Affirmative Action has been around for X years with no communal social improvement. No courage to tell that holier-than-thou wire rimmed eye glass wearing, latte drinking see you next tuesday that it is your child and you will discipline it as you see fit. No courage to call the ACLU a bunch of whiney little suck holes. No courage to say OJ was guilty. No courage to repeal guns laws. No courage to live up to the oath of office to defend the Constitution against enemies foriegn and domestic.

If the quote attributed to Clinton in 1994 that started this thread is accurate, isn't that greater grounds for impeachment than a BJ?

Flame Away!


[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
I find very little on this thread to disagree with. In fact, everything posted here seems so scary because it is in fact very close to reality. But the interesting thing is, I doubt much if anything will change, and I seriously doubt "a war is brewing". I am 29 years old, and consider myself to still be part of the "younger" generation, and let me tell you I have a very very hard time finding anyone at all my age or younger who thinks the way we do, that shares any of the beliefs above. In fact, most younger people have no idea what we are talking about, and their eyes glaze over if they listen at all, usually they walk away thinking we are brainwashed. Well, let me tell you something-- the future is the young people, and if anything is going to change or any war is going to be fought, it will have to be fought by he younger generation. And ghuess what, it won't be. One reason is that they do not have the guts, honor or courage to do so, but more importantly, they don't even have a clue what to fight for!! Look at what the younger generation is protesting or fighting for today: soft drinks are too expensive at woodstock, Ted Nugent is a hunter, save the rain forest, Elian Gonzalez (and not for the reasons you think), or police brutality (by goading police into fights at the nat'l repub convention), and all the other PC crap ad naseum. And those are the ones who care, but the fact is most of them just don't care.

Now look how increasing left liberal the existing baby boomer generation has become, and how it has indeed torn the fabric of the country and turned us into squabbling factions instead of the 'melting pot'. For example, my grandparents think this hyphenated American crap is a great shame, especially since they bought into the melting pot theory and built a good life becasue of it, but my parents don't seem to notice a problem. My parents think I've been brainwashed. One day I was explaining the reason for my gun ownerhsip at a family gathering, and my Dad rolled his eyes and said "he believes in this rights stuff!". Shortly after that, my Mom told me I was scaring her and that I'd been brainwashed. She said that I was starting to sound like "one of those NRA guys". I let that slide and didn't tell her I AM one of those NRA guys. Please believe me, what I said in that conversation was only a reference to how it was my constitutional right to own a gun... I swear I was not ranting, nothing racist, nothing violent, nothing crazy... yet I am brainwashed because I belive in "rights". My point? These are well educated and intelligent people who have only been bombarded by this propaganda for a short time, yet most of them buy into it without question. But the younger generations are another story-- they will be inundated with liberal PC propaganda from birth. They will not be able to distinguish right from wrong, they will not be able to think of the right things no their own, and any of us who tries to change their minds will invariably be seen as old fashioned bigoted kooks. The point about was made that "But Europeans have been bred into sheeple for so damn long they hardly even know how to question it anymore".. Well guess what, the first generation of bred for sheeple are already here, with more to follow.
 
Battler - Gopher a 45 may be right! The "socialist-entitlement-welfare state" cannot be funded indefinitely here in the United States and at the same time provide for our own defense as well as that for the rest of the "free" world. The western Europeans have enjoyed relative prosperity under Socialism because they haven't really had to expend significant resources for an effective military defense. Were it not for the USA, they would all be speaking Russian now. And, if not for the USA, they'll be speaking Chinese in the future. The closer the USA gets to a full blown socialist state, the closer the "free" world gets to losing all vestiges of freedom.
 
Speaking of brainwashing, y'all might want to read this article by Robert L. Kocher. The man is sharp!
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.17/attitude.html

As a bonus game, see how many of the "techniques" he mentions you can spot on your average daily national newscast. I would post the story itself, but it's really long.

Nice post, Dangus. I too was going to make mention of the fact that the Europeans have been long accustomed to being told what to do and when to do it. Isn't getting away from that the whole reason this country was founded? However, like wormwood, I see that the trait of questioning authority in any way, shape or form is rapidly being bred out of our society. I do see encouraging signs, such as the rapidly growing homeschool movement, growing digust/distrust of the old media and the Elko type nonviolent protests. It looks as if all parents and citizens are not totally asleep at the wheel after all. I often engage people of my genration (I'm 29 also) in debate about guns and other freedom issues. I don't scream, quote Madison or Jefferson, whom well over half of these folks haven't heard of anyway (Isn't Madison the new character on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer?"), but rather I let them regurgitate propaganda they've picked up through the media and refute it point by point. Most of them I don't convince one way or another, but it's the 1 out of 20 that makes it worthwhile. About half of the rest I can see at least I've given them something to think about and perhaps they'll listen to the news a little more critically in the future. After I've backed them (gently) into a rhetorical corner, all they can usually admit to is, "Well, I don't have a problem with YOU having a gun, just not those gun-nuts." Usually I'll show them my NRA or GOA card at that point. :D JPFO's coming, as soon as I scrape up the cash, in case you were wondering.

Yes, I think we'll bankrupt ourselves by playing globocop and world's grocery store in addition to the rampant domestic spending. The European countries also seem to have a relatively static number of those in the dependent class, while ours increases every day and during every legislative session, as new entitlements are dreamed up. I guess there the leeches are in balance with the producing class, but I think they'll push it too far too quickly here. As far as surveillance, our large population in a large land mass is going to be very hard to keep tabs on, even with the best of technology. Not that I condone what they did, but did they ever catch the abortion clinic bomber or the guy who sniped an abortion Dr? Did they ever apprehend the two men who killed a (deputy sheriff?) in the four corners region about three years ago? Would they have caught the Unabomber if his brother hadn't turned him in? These are people that most would like to see behind bars anyhow, so what about when they start going after peacable people who only want to be left alone?

In the end, I'm thinking either there's going to be a war or the country will Balkanize, maybe both.
 
Dagnus,

Get an extra bowl of Wheaties in you this morning? Good post.

Gopher and others:

Do a search for the "Third Way". Basically, its a Clinton/Blair inspired economic system that combines aspects of capitalism in a managed economy. The Leftists realized that the problem with Socialism is that you put the government in charge of production which inevitably leads to Soviet-style shortages. They've solved this problem by leaving control of production in the hands of Industrialists/Capitalists while still maintaining overall control. Its really a marriage of big government and big capital and its pure evil, through and through. The "Third Way" can sustain itself for a long, long time, perhaps indefinitely.

By the way, this idea was inspired by the futurist couple the Tofflers. Newt Gingrich thinks the Tofflers ideas are 'da bomb' as well. Beware the Republicans, kids.

There's another good thread here on TFL you may want to check out on the number of Americans packing up and leaving you may want to check out.
 
Yeah, the "Third Way" is just Facism dredged up and spritzed with enough cologne to mask the dead corpse's stink. I suppose it could sustain itself for a while, but that requires intelligent long-term planning, and I don't see a heckuva lot of that going on these days.

I also don't have any faith in either "legitimate" party, though I'll probably hold my nose and vote for W. in Nov. as it may give us some breathing space.

Jack 99: could you post the link to the thread you mentioned? I can't seem to find it anywhere. However, I think running away, while understandable, is not a good idea, since this "third way" garbage will simply catch up to you or your descendants at a later date. I'd rather stay here and try to drive the proverbial stake through its heart.
 
Wormtown is on the mark.
We may struggle like hell to retain what vestige of dignity might remain for the true believer of personal responsibility, but that will not ensure a choice for future generations.
Sorry, while there are some exceptions, todays younger generation as a group aint up to it.

[This message has been edited by Dave D (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
Gopher,

Here's the link:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37989

Gotta disagree though, the Third Way can probably sustain itself indefinitely. Much like Hitler's Fascist economic policies, Capitalism is still the dominant force and the profit motive still exists. What pure Socialism taught the Pinkos is that without a profit motive, workers won't work very hard and production will stagnate. The Soviet system was a great example. Many of the collective farms were non-producing. In other words, the food it took to feed the mostly alchoholic farmers exceeded the food they produced! They kept these farms going for appearances, but they were economic sinkholes. Meanwhile, the 3% of the farms that were allowed to stay in private hands produced 25% of the country's food.
 
Wormtown,

Me 29 too. Me got gun.

I teach a high school Sunday school class at church. And I sometimes talk to the kids before class about topics other than theology. OH MAN. You wouldn't believe the conceptions they have about freedom, government and personal rights. It's like tapping into MTV commentary. That's about half of the kids. The other half actually know how to think and read. Just guess which ones go to public schools and which ones go to private religious schools.

MP FreePERSON
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Get an extra bowl of Wheaties in you this morning? Good post.[/quote]

Just generic oatmeal :D

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top