tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post2854159333440100463..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: In Defense of RushPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-72284559267378980252009-02-04T18:37:00.000-05:002009-02-04T18:37:00.000-05:00dmarks typed:'Arthurstone: Colonizing is not free ...dmarks typed:<BR/><BR/>'Arthurstone: Colonizing is not free trade. Also, it's not free if some people are actual slaves and can't make decisions.'<BR/><BR/>Bingo. Right you are. <BR/><BR/>But it's necessary for any sort of understanding of how we got here to realize that the colonial powers (Britain first and foremost) were on a mission to improve the world and believed their system (capitalism) was superior to that of all the nations they colonized. That many Brits and a few locals ended up filthy rich was all to the good. It proved 'God' was on their side.<BR/><BR/>And it turned out that most folks didn't benefit much from their introduction to industrialized capitalism.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting how much the PNAC jargon sounds like the old British imperialists.<BR/><BR/>Not a coincidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-31967699182703687112009-02-04T13:45:00.000-05:002009-02-04T13:45:00.000-05:00Arthurstone: Colonizing is not free trade. Also, i...Arthurstone: Colonizing is not free trade. Also, it's not free if some people are actual slaves and can't make decisions.<BR/><BR/>Toad said "Rush is a big, fat, drug addict; he is a farce and an idiot."<BR/><BR/>If weight is a valid political criticism, I'm surprised that Al Gore does not get bashed for it more. Hint: try for a more substantive criticism of Rush Limbaugh next time. It's pretty easy to do without the irrelevant (bi,g fat) and playground insult (idiot). You had a good start with the "drug addict" part.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-16966704602939546492009-02-03T14:53:00.000-05:002009-02-03T14:53:00.000-05:00Toad: seeing what conservative policies got us ove...Toad: <I>seeing what conservative policies got us over the last 8 years...</I><BR/><BR/>Other than some tax cuts and a few social things, I'd like to see all the conservatism.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-66337257671752456432009-02-02T11:26:00.000-05:002009-02-02T11:26:00.000-05:00Actually I can imagine that my version would reson...Actually I can imagine that my version would resonate far more deeply with the vast majority of the world where folks scrap by on a few dollars a day.<BR/><BR/>I am finishing up a trilogy of novels by the late JG Farrell. The subject is the British Empire as viewed through three separate events. The Indian Mutiny of 1857 (Siege of Krishnapur), the fall of Singapore in 1942 (The Singapore Grip) and Northern Ireland (Troubles). All make for a very interesting discussion of capital's effects on aboriginal populations. Nation building. Colonialism. Free trade and the like. It's interesting to superimpose a map of European empire over a current map and take a look at who benefited from the experience and who didn't. <BR/><BR/>Highly recommended.<BR/><BR/>Krishnapur won the Booker in 1973.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-51058587741050764562009-02-01T22:49:00.000-05:002009-02-01T22:49:00.000-05:00Arthur: That tends to happen the most under social...Arthur: That tends to happen the most under socialism. Under capitalism, workers have a lot more control over their own lives and destiny. Far more than under socialism. Oligarchies tend to exist due to government tampering with the economy: the more socialism there is, the more power is concentrated in the hands of the rulers at the expense of the people.<BR/><BR/>And Arthur? I have something to ask you, unrelated to scoring poins in these debates. Since I can't email you, please contact me in the email address in my profile.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-35164056528538745332009-02-01T13:16:00.000-05:002009-02-01T13:16:00.000-05:00They may not be evil, or the state may not be very...They may not be evil, or the state may not be very capitalist, but their name is an open declaration of intent to turn the country into an oligarchy beholden to their corporate masters at the expense of workers. <BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-61918452372566988702009-02-01T12:17:00.000-05:002009-02-01T12:17:00.000-05:00I do have a point to add:I heard it yesterday (but...I do have a point to add:<BR/><BR/>I heard it yesterday (but lack a link to verify) that Obama's new addition to the FCC is NOT a proponent of the (un)Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully, that means that Obama will have the sense not to drag us down that evil road.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Nancy Pelosi still seems warm to the idea.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-84783934024457905952009-02-01T07:42:00.000-05:002009-02-01T07:42:00.000-05:00"Again. There are countries in Europe today that e..."Again. There are countries in Europe today that exist quite successfully under at least a partially Socialist system."<BR/><BR/>Again, this is because they are mostly non-Socialist. The more socialist they are, the worse they are. The most recent example of a country that was mostly socialist in Europe was Serbia in the 1990s, which was run by Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party. The government, as per socialist ideology, controlled most of the means of production there.<BR/><BR/>"There are no evil dictators in these countries"<BR/><BR/>You find these in the countries that are the most socialist. <BR/><BR/>"This is an example of real socialism at work: the people retain the power through collective ownership of the means of production and together take the responsibility for each other's mutual benefit."<BR/><BR/>Under socialism, the ruling elites control the means of production, even if it means intervening in private matters and forcing the owners of a company to give away control of the company to those who never earned it or nor not qualified to make decisions. That's a form of fascism, plain and simple. Under capitalism, each worker (including managers, who work too) completely controls the part he or she contributes, as everything is part of a voluntary agreement. The free market allows such arrangements with employees as you described in your examples. Or not. It depends on what the people work out themselves, and what the actual creators of the company decide is best (as opposes to a "one size fits view" solution being forced on them by government). That is the beauty of it.<BR/><BR/>The companies you mention in the US work according to free market capitalist principles: the company itself chose the management style that best worked according to that situation, and it was not forced on it by government. <BR/><BR/>The free market allows a diversity of management and ownership styles to be entereed into voluntarily by those directly involved in the company. What you describe works in some companies, and not others. Under capitalism, people are free to try this out, and if it works, it survives. Otherwise, it does not, and no-one is forced into one management/ownership style by the government against their needs and interests.<BR/><BR/>"So many people believe that socialism is about raping the populace."<BR/><BR/>That is very true.<BR/><BR/>"Socialism recognizes that in a capitalist economy, the control is placed in the hands of a few"<BR/><BR/>No. In socialism, control is placed in the hands of a very few. In capitalism, there is little such "control" as decisions are left to the people not the State.<BR/><BR/>"who are then free to exploit those who are forced to work for them."<BR/><BR/>The force is again in socialism, not capitalism.<BR/><BR/>"The goal is to end the exploitation and discrimination, and put the power back in the hands of the population as a whole."<BR/><BR/>The "population as a whole" used as a euphemism by socialists to justifty dictatorial control by elites who run everything "in the people's interest". The more socialist a country is, the less power the ruled have.<BR/><BR/>"(the Nazis liked the word "Socialist" too and yet there was nothing "Socialist" about it). <BR/><BR/>The Nazis were very socialist, of course, as the party held to the central socialist ideal it is best when a strong government runs the peoples' lives for them. The term Nazi was just a nickname, in fact for a party whose actual name was the German language version of "National Socialist German Workers' Party"<BR/><BR/>"To paint all governments who call themselves 'socialist' as evil"<BR/><BR/>They may not be evil, or the country may in fact not be very socialist, but their name is an open declaration of intent to turn the country into a totalitarian state.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-10465955990303442812009-02-01T04:28:00.000-05:002009-02-01T04:28:00.000-05:00If you have a clue about socialism, you will despi...<I>If you have a clue about socialism, you will despise it and work against it. One has to look no further than Europe in the mid-2oth century to see the triumph of two different socialist regimes, one in Eastern Europe and the other in Central Europe.</I><BR/><BR/>Again. There are countries in Europe today that exist quite successfully under at least a partially Socialist system. They are not bastions of abuse, they are not desolate wastelands, their people are modern, educated, civilized and happy, and we can learn from them. There are no evil dictators in these countries, there are no mass genocide programs, there are no repressive regimes forcing the people to go barefoot in rags. Have nations claiming to be 'Socialist' put forth governments that do have these things? Certainly. In the same way, the 'democratic republic' of the United States, in which 'all men are created equal', previously held as law that its black population was worth 3/5 of the corresponding white population, and equated them with property on a par with livestock. Not the same? I beg to differ: it's a situation where the name and the game are opposed to each other.<BR/><BR/>The political spectrum is just that: a spectrum. You can take any ideology you like and slap the name of your choice on it (the Nazis liked the word "Socialist" too and yet there was nothing "Socialist" about it). There is communism, there is socialism, there is democratic socialism, there is fascism, there is anarchy. There are mixed economies, which in objective terms seem to be quite successful. To paint all governments who call themselves 'socialist' as evil, disregarding those whose economies, countries and citizenry are successful, is the same as calling all 'democracies' bastions of All That Is Good and True. It's patently untrue.<BR/><BR/>So many people believe that socialism is about raping the populace. This, in fact, is the diametric opposite to the goals of socialism. Socialism recognizes that in a capitalist economy, the control is placed in the hands of a few, who are then free to exploit those who are forced to work for them. The goal is to end the exploitation and discrimination, and put the power back in the hands of the population as a whole.<BR/><BR/>On a micro level, we can see that in the US, companies who distribute ownership among their employees (and several large companies do this) are successful, have higher productivity rates, employee satisfaction and retention, and, if you do any studies on the current situation, are experiencing fewer layoffs in the current economy due to the willingness of all employees to pitch in and make changes in their operating procedure to benefit all at the expense of none. This is an example of real socialism at work: the people retain the power through collective ownership of the means of production and together take the responsibility for each other's mutual benefit.<BR/><BR/>Imagine! A company in the United States, of all things, working according to Socialist principles! And my God.. it works! No oppressive regimes, no bloodshed, no genocide, no oppressed workers struggling at the expense of a few.<BR/><BR/>Imagine that!Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-1856908286220664012009-01-31T15:01:00.000-05:002009-01-31T15:01:00.000-05:00dmarks typed:'The guy who was overthrown in 1953 w...dmarks typed:<BR/><BR/>'The guy who was overthrown in 1953 was no saint either.'<BR/><BR/>Who said he was? Still, the Brits and US really had no business overthrowing the guy. We have a habit of changing the rules when the locals go against our wishes. See Chile, 1973.<BR/><BR/>dmarks added:<BR/><BR/>'But I think you make good points once we get rid of the claim of "western imperialism".'<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Oh how I wish we could. <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sadly western involvement in Iran is indeed a textbook example of western imperialism.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Britain_relations<BR/><BR/>Indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-24199342825349950812009-01-31T14:03:00.000-05:002009-01-31T14:03:00.000-05:00The guy who was overthrown in 1953 was no saint ei...The guy who was overthrown in 1953 was no saint either.<BR/><BR/>"Death to America" is an official government chant that over time has less and less meaning to those who say it. But it does underscore the genocidal intent of the current Iranian government.<BR/><BR/>But I think you make good points once we get rid of the claim of "western imperialism".dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-35036770125952604082009-01-31T13:33:00.000-05:002009-01-31T13:33:00.000-05:00There was an interesting piece on the radio today....There was an interesting piece on the radio today. Seems it's the 30th Anniversary of the Iranian revolution and an American reporter was visiting the shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini where a whole host of events were marking the occasion, speeches, prayers, dedications, parades, various tributes, etc. Often punctuating the end of various events and scattered throughout was the slogan 'Death to America!'<BR/><BR/>The reporter spoke to some of the 'Death to America' crowd and found them very polite and eager to discuss their views with an...American. Like so much political protest in the age of electronic media there is a Kabuki-like formality to the events in Tehran. Politics IS theatre. And the point is 'Death to America' rarely means 'let's kill all the Americans'. It is more akin to 'I hope he fails'.<BR/><BR/>Many Americans are comforted by the notion that events in the Middle East are driven by an irrational hatred of 'the West' and 'Islamofascism'. It is difficult for us to grasp there is a political component to all of this. And that long time American policy has caused a great deal of resentment in the region.<BR/><BR/>Whereas Rush Limbaugh has nothing to complain about and performs his radio act for money (having long since discovered that stoking the resentments of his audience is hugely lucrative) the Iranians at least have a legitimate beef or several. Long victim of western imperialism they likewise have suffered the consequences of a nation making its own choices which displeased the powers that be:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état <BR/><BR/>Of course there are people who want to cause us harm. And they must be dealt with.<BR/><BR/>But the notion that adherents of an entire religion wish us dead is preposterous. And not particularly useful in making the hard decisions we need to make regarding the actual threats we face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-61667649709455952742009-01-31T13:28:00.000-05:002009-01-31T13:28:00.000-05:00"Re-instating the Fairness Doctrine is not the sam..."Re-instating the Fairness Doctrine is not the same as repealing the right to vote for a group of Americans."<BR/><BR/>Actually, it is. It guts the first amendment of "freedom of the press", especially in this electronic era and there has been talk of extending it to cable. Severely curtailing the right of the free press is as serious as voting rights damage.<BR/><BR/>"Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine"<BR/><BR/>I don't think he's big on the whole issue. It is not a biggy to him. He'd not propose or push it, but I doubt very much he'd veto it if it passed across his desk. <BR/><BR/>Also, I'm having less and less faith in Pres. Obama promises. He promised not to hire <I>any</I> lobbyists. But now he has hired at least 10, with the very lame excuse that it's only a few.<BR/><BR/>Also, I don't know if he promised to have an ethical administration. If he didn't, it's a good thing, because he is actually lowering the bar set by his predecessors with his new Secretary of Treasury.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-26133795127278267992009-01-31T13:10:00.000-05:002009-01-31T13:10:00.000-05:00It has been shown that several top Democratic Cong...<I>It has been shown that several top Democratic Congressional leaders favor the idea of censoring the media. This makes it a danger worth pointing out. It has existed, which blunts the idea that it is mere "paranoia". And if top Dems had their way, it would come back... further vaporizing the idea that it is mere "paranoia".</I><BR/><BR/>Worry about it when there is a House or Senate bill proposing it. Then remember this:<BR/><BR/>Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine<BR/>There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.<BR/>By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 12:25:00 PM MT<BR/>Related: Complete Election 2008 Coverage <BR/><BR/><B>There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.</B><A>Source</A><BR/><BR/><I>Now, imagine that the top GOP leaders favored repealing the voting rights act.</I> <BR/><BR/>Sorry. Not a good comparison. <BR/><BR/>Re-instating the Fairness Doctrine is not the same as repealing the right to vote for a group of Americans.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-46734974927678502012009-01-31T12:02:00.000-05:002009-01-31T12:02:00.000-05:00Shaw said "No one in the Executive or the Legislat...Shaw said "No one in the Executive or the Legislative Branch has proposed any such legislation. This is paranoia set out by the fringe scaredy cats of the GOP."<BR/><BR/>It has been shown that several top Democratic Congressional leaders favor the idea of censoring the media. This makes it a danger worth pointing out. It has existed, which blunts the idea that it is mere "paranoia". And if top Dems had their way, it would come back... further vaporizing the idea that it is mere "paranoia".<BR/><BR/>Now, imagine that the top GOP leaders favored repealing the voting rights act. Even if they were not at the time actively pursuing it, wouldn't you say it was fair to warn about that too?dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-6549027231747653822009-01-31T11:43:00.000-05:002009-01-31T11:43:00.000-05:00Myself said...So Let ME Be Blunt Also!I don't want...Myself said...<BR/><BR/><I>So Let ME Be Blunt Also!<BR/>I don't want Obama to succeed either... <BR/><BR/>The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an assault against Free Speech.</I> <BR/><BR/>No. It. Hasn't. <BR/><BR/>The First Amendment guarantees individuals freedom of speech and prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting that free speech, with certain modifications, i.e. speech that causes a clear and present danger,you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater--Judge Learned Hand.<BR/><BR/>The DCCC's petition merely invites people to sign it and tell Limbaugh what they think of his unAmerican remarks.<BR/><BR/>It truly amazes me that so many Americans don't know what the First Amendment is about.<BR/><BR/>If Patrick deletes remarks from his blog (and he has) he is not "taking away your freedom of speech." He's. Not. The. Government. He's exercising his right as a private citizen to run his blog the way he sees fit.<BR/><BR/>Limbaugh has the right to vomit his nonsense about hoping President Obama fails (and it's not Obama's policies, either. Limbaugh says emphatically "I hope HE fails." Not "I hope THEY fail."<BR/>But American citizens also have the right to hold him accountable for those words, and therefore, sign petitions saying they think he's a bloviating cacafuego.<BR/><BR/><I>Make no mistake, their current 'online petition' against Rush Limbaugh is nothing but an effort to lay groundwork for resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine.</I><BR/><BR/>No one in the Executive or the Legislative Branch has proposed any such legislation. This is paranoia set out by the fringe scaredy cats of the GOP.<BR/><BR/><I>But my friends, I'll say it here - and run no risk of Big Brother stifling my political speech (yet...)</I><BR/><BR/>When you say it "here," the only "risk" you run is having Big Brother Patrick delete your rant.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I'm with Rush. I don't want President Obama to succeed. That may seem rather unpatriotic.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, in addition to unpatriotic, it's batshit crazy. But, you're free to say it, fellow citizen.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Trust me, I'm one of the more patriotic people that I know (& I know some real red-white-&-blues). However, at this point, I believe I'm taking the most patriotic position.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course you do. And what could be more patriotic than hoping for more failure for America?<BR/><BR/>God Bless America, and listen, God, "Myself" wants her to fail.<BR/><BR/>Amen.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-33809323388982234352009-01-31T11:07:00.000-05:002009-01-31T11:07:00.000-05:00Beth said...I can't freakin believe liberals openl...Beth said...<BR/><BR/>I can't freakin believe liberals openly wanting to embrace socialism, the pilgrims didn't risk their lives to escape tyranny for kicks,<BR/><BR/>Actually, the Puritans [considered a perjorative name to these religious purists] were pretty tyrannical themselves. They left Europe because they couldn't succeed in imposing their strident religious beliefs on others. The Puritans came here for religious freedom--the freedom to force people to believe as they did.<BR/><BR/>About 21,000 of the "godly" came to the New World on a "Pilgrimage" to impose their brand of religion, 13,000 went to Massachusetts Colony. <BR/><BR/>Throughout this time they were not separatists. In fact, when the government in England was taken over by Oliver Cromwell not only did the emigration stop, some people went back to England. (Cromwell was a "Puritan" - he also abolished Christmas as a celebration but that is another story.) <BR/><BR/>While the first generation was in charge, there was strict adherence to the church laws including forcing people to church. Select members of the congregation went to the homes of people not in church to find out why they were not there. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne gives a pretty fair presentation about the attitudes and activities of the Puritan Elders. They did not extend the tenets of their religion to the local indigenous peoples.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-3548673472701324082009-01-31T11:05:00.000-05:002009-01-31T11:05:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-85502765992469317932009-01-31T11:01:00.000-05:002009-01-31T11:01:00.000-05:00Beth. You have it right. Socialism is about nothin...Beth. You have it right. Socialism is about nothing power for the ruling elites at the expense of the ruled.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-90810479797184996842009-01-31T10:46:00.000-05:002009-01-31T10:46:00.000-05:00It seems inconsistent with the ideals of Socialism...It seems inconsistent with the ideals of Socialism for the Socialist Party to want the PEOPLE to have control over their destiny instead of allowing the government to intervene, as they did so badly in the example you mentioned Saty in Colorado.<BR/><BR/>And to "Myself", did you actually read what I wrote?????Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069893764658122257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-74277650467788264422009-01-31T08:53:00.000-05:002009-01-31T08:53:00.000-05:00Beth said..."Rush never should have said he hopes ...Beth said...<BR/>"Rush never should have said he hopes Obama fails, what he should have said is "I KNOW he will fail" because liberalism (whether liberals admit it or not) always does fail."<BR/><BR/>WRONG!<BR/><BR/>Rush hoped that Obama FAILS as do so many of US do.<BR/>Rush is not afraid to say it as he thinks it.<BR/>Maybe you feel it's better to pussy-foot around the issue but HE does not nor do I.<BR/>We do not want America to become a Socialist country so what is wrong with hoping that he fails.<BR/>I do not support him (Obama) and so many of the bloggers on these boards have expressed the same opinion.<BR/>Yes, it's OK to NOT to support a President who is SO off the wall as this man is.<BR/><BR/><B>So Let ME Be Blunt Also!</B><BR/>I don't want Obama to succeed either... <BR/>The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an assault against Free Speech. Make no mistake, their current 'online petition' against Rush Limbaugh is nothing but an effort to lay groundwork for resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. But my friends, I'll say it here - and run no risk of Big Brother stifling my political speech (yet...) - I'm with Rush. I don't want President Obama to succeed. That may seem rather unpatriotic. Trust me, I'm one of the more patriotic people that I know (& I know some real red-white-&-blues). However, at this point, I believe I'm taking the most patriotic position.<BR/><BR/>Hear me...I'm not saying that I want our government to come crashing down. I'm not saying I want Mr. Obama to fail as a President in the eyes of the world, or even in the eyes of our people. What I am saying (& what Mr. Limbaugh was saying, too) is that I want his agenda to fail. Oh, how I want his agenda to fail...<BR/><BR/>I want his anti-capitialist, income-redistribution-socialist, pro-abortion, dismantle-traditional-marriage, environment-before-common-sense, foreign appeasement , terrorist-assuaging agenda to fail...and fail miserably. That would be best for our country. I desperately want what's best for our country.<BR/><BR/>There, I've said it . Enjoy your afternoon.Me, Myself, And Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00034525635377731241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-11871586621206381532009-01-31T08:26:00.000-05:002009-01-31T08:26:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Me, Myself, And Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00034525635377731241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-81192114137026752752009-01-31T06:38:00.000-05:002009-01-31T06:38:00.000-05:00"teach people in this country that socialism and c..."teach people in this country that socialism and communism are the same, which they're not, and that anything that doesn't involve businesses raping workers is EEEEEEEEVIL."<BR/><BR/>Socialism and communism are not the same. One can be socialist without being communist. See the Ba'ath parties of Iraq and Syria, and the German National Socialist Party. But all communists are socialists. Look at the first "S" in "USSR".<BR/><BR/>Socialism is usually about the government raping workers and denying them the choice over their own lives. Socialism is about the ruling elites making the peoples' personal choices for them, against their will and against their interest.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-42937410667801522602009-01-31T06:34:00.000-05:002009-01-31T06:34:00.000-05:00"Labour laws in this country as they exist today, ..."Labour laws in this country as they exist today, ie, the weekend, the eight hour day, etc., are in large part in place due to Socialist activism."<BR/><BR/>Which have nothing at all to do with feudalism.<BR/><BR/>"The McCarthyism is the knee-jerk reaction to the word socialism, which in this country incites an instant fear despite the amount of knowledge one has on the topic.<BR/><BR/>A lot of people who rail against socialism haven't got the first frickin clue what it means or what it's done, see above results of activism, for them in this country."<BR/><BR/>Actually, McCarthyism is accusing someone of being a communist when they weren't or aren't. That's all it is.<BR/><BR/>If you have a clue about socialism, you will despise it and work against it. One has to look no further than Europe in the mid-2oth century to see the triumph of two different socialist regimes, one in Eastern Europe and the other in Central Europe.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-20462483165328790812009-01-31T01:51:00.000-05:002009-01-31T01:51:00.000-05:00In 1914, one of the worst labor conflicts in Ameri...In 1914, one of the worst labor conflicts in American history took place at a mining colony in Colorado called Ludlow. After workers struck with grievances ranging from requests for an eight-hour day to allegations of subjugation, the National Guard was called in by Colorado governor Elias Ammons. That winter, Guardsmen made 172 arrests.<BR/><BR/>The strikers began to fight back, killing four mine guards and firing into a separate camp where strikebreakers lived. When body of a strikebreaker was found nearby, the National Guard’s General Chase ordered the tent colony destroyed in retaliation.<BR/>__________________________<BR/><BR/>"As worker discontent and strikes… intensified in the summer of 1917, demands grew for prompt federal action… The anti-labor forces concentrated their venom on the IWW."<BR/>Soon, “the halls of Congress rang with denunciations of the IWW" and the government sided with industry; "federal attorneys viewed strikes not as the behavior of discontented workers but as the outcome of subversive and even German influences".<BR/><BR/>On September 5, 1917, at the request of President Wilson, the Justice Department conducted a raid on the Industrial Workers of the World. They stormed every one of the 48 IWW headquarters in the country. "By month’s end, a federal grand jury had indicted nearly two hundred IWW leaders on charges of sedition and espionage" under the Espionage Act. <BR/>__________________________<BR/><BR/>...the Socialist Party put a number of issues on the national agenda and advanced perhaps by decades the legislation which achieved a number of objectives for working class America. The list includes giving women the right to vote. It includes legislation restricting child labor, and protecting workers’ rights to join unions and when necessary to strike. It would also include workplace safety, on the railroads and in the mines and factories.Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.com