Who do you support now (03/08/08)
- Thread starter Northern Sod Breaker
- Start date
RiverRider
New member
The technical and strict definition of socialism does not matter. We, in America, tend to call anything that is collectivist in nature as "socialist." The democrats' brand of socialism just happens to be the way collectivism can be jammed into our political and legal system.
Socialism, communism, communitarianism, whatever---they are all collectivists, and their philosophies are antithetical to freedom. If the state is empowered to confiscate the fruits of a man's labor, then he is in bondage just as if it were King George of England himself taking his money from him. And this is what collectivism does. Collectivism is tyranny.
If the democrats are not socialists by the strictest definition, it matters little. They are collectivists. And the liberals within the republican party are of the same stripe.
I defy anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that the democrats don't want to confiscate my checkbook, my guns, and my liberty. If one cannot admit to himself that the dems are anti-gun and will at some point move to confiscate, he's in denial.
If the democrats gain complete control of the government this election cycle, America will be finished.
Socialism, communism, communitarianism, whatever---they are all collectivists, and their philosophies are antithetical to freedom. If the state is empowered to confiscate the fruits of a man's labor, then he is in bondage just as if it were King George of England himself taking his money from him. And this is what collectivism does. Collectivism is tyranny.
If the democrats are not socialists by the strictest definition, it matters little. They are collectivists. And the liberals within the republican party are of the same stripe.
I defy anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that the democrats don't want to confiscate my checkbook, my guns, and my liberty. If one cannot admit to himself that the dems are anti-gun and will at some point move to confiscate, he's in denial.
If the democrats gain complete control of the government this election cycle, America will be finished.
Yes, it does matter because calling anything even remotely collectivist "socialism" is grossly dishonest.
Maybe to a specific flavor of freedom but America did not invent freedom nor do we have the authority to define it. There are plenty of nations in the world with collectivist attitudes that consider themselves just as free as anyone else and they choose to live in a collectivist society.
A little less ethnocentrism would serve you well.
RiverRider
New member
I suppose people like John Locke, James Madison, and folks like them knew little about freedom? Maybe a little research into what these men had to say on the subject would serve you well.
Good day to you, sir.
Good day to you, sir.
I know very well what they had to say and I also know that they were merely men, not infallible prophets. Those men, as well as the rest of the founding fathers, made plenty of mistakes when it came to freedom. They fought for their liberty and rights, not any universal concept of freedom.
Their beliefs are not the definitions of freedom.
Sure, they knew plenty about it. As do many people today. But they still didn't invent it and we still don't have a monopoly on it. You, nor anyone else, has any basis with which to say the Swedes are not free or the Japanese are not free or the Canadians are not free yet those are all relatively collectivist societies. They choose to be so. That is just a valid example as freedom as what we have in America.
Their beliefs are not the definitions of freedom.
Sure, they knew plenty about it. As do many people today. But they still didn't invent it and we still don't have a monopoly on it. You, nor anyone else, has any basis with which to say the Swedes are not free or the Japanese are not free or the Canadians are not free yet those are all relatively collectivist societies. They choose to be so. That is just a valid example as freedom as what we have in America.
Wait, wait, wait for it...
And finally you get an opening...
I voted for Bush twice. Look me in the eye and tell me I did the right thing.
The country is going to hell with or without a republican at the helm.
I honestly don't know who I'll get if I vote for the "maverick" DO YOU?
And finally you get an opening...
I voted for Bush twice. Look me in the eye and tell me I did the right thing.
The country is going to hell with or without a republican at the helm.
I honestly don't know who I'll get if I vote for the "maverick" DO YOU?
RiverRider
New member
Yeah, you're right. Let's just vote Hilary and make sure it all goes down the tube Before February, 2009.
Redworm---I know a pseudointellectual when I see one. So long.
Redworm---I know a pseudointellectual when I see one. So long.
.
I ask the question honestly. After Voting for Bush twice, who will I get if I vote the "maverick"?
Your best answer is twisted to...vote for Hillary?
Is she now the nominee? Or should we waste some more breath there?
POST #51 Attempting to go Back to TOPIC:
I'm still supporting Ron Paul. Until the convention then I'll make a decision.
LightningJoe
New member
If you want to know what Obama thinks, well, he won't tell you. He's left no trail other than his voting record (reportedly Liberal beyond imagining). He does do a little talking for campaign reasons. Doesn't say much in the concrete. What he does say is he'll "fight" corporations and reduce inequality. I don't have time to explain the hardcore stupidity of these notions. But I think everyone capable of understanding already does.
If you still want to know what Obama thinks, listen to the other Obama, his wife. She doesn't mind telling you what she thinks. And she thinks America is a "mean" country that has mistreated her (she only makes 300k/year) and she's never been proud of the place. I frankly doubt Mr Obama spends many evenings trying to convert her to his emphatically pro-America viewpoint. Ya know?
If you still want to know what Obama thinks, listen to the other Obama, his wife. She doesn't mind telling you what she thinks. And she thinks America is a "mean" country that has mistreated her (she only makes 300k/year) and she's never been proud of the place. I frankly doubt Mr Obama spends many evenings trying to convert her to his emphatically pro-America viewpoint. Ya know?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I do not like the idea of "fighting" American companies. I would much rather see it be made a goal to rebuild the American corporate system by making it possible for American companies to compete with foreign goods without sending jobs overseas. Not by dragging the cost of American goods and service down to levels on par with 3rd world countries but by making it impossible for those same countries to exploit our consumer market with low quality, low priced goods. All the while protecting American workers from profiteering execs.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
We are not on the same page there. I do not believe we should be trying to shape our corporate structures to match those of 3rd world countries, but instead place the burden on the foreign producers.