Socialism
May 14, 2014 13:16:28 #
May 14, 2014 13:40:23 #
May 15, 2014 03:15:26 #
DougW
Loc: SoCal
Peter-S wrote:
And England never would have survived WWII without it...
Socialism: Is for the people. Not the socialist.
useful idiot leading the masses
May 15, 2014 10:34:00 #
He also said: You can always rely on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
May 15, 2014 12:11:51 #
I can't help but notice that our liberal friends are a no show.Great post.Thanx.
May 15, 2014 12:31:54 #
DougW wrote:
Socialism: Is for the people. Not the socialist.
Then this photo shows the leader sing G W Bush.
May 15, 2014 12:47:25 #
DougW
Loc: SoCal
bigshot wrote:
Then this photo shows the leader sing G W Bush.
That is a picture of a " Judas Goat " leading his flock .
I think the current resident of the W.H. fits the bill well.
As did many of our more " establishment " leaders.
T.A.N.S.T.A.F.L.
" our future "
bàaa socialism good conservatives bàaaad
May 15, 2014 17:20:46 #
Peter-S wrote:
And England never would have survived WWII without it...
There is a difference between pure Socialism and Capitalism with social programs. We saw how well the first worked in the Soviet Union.
The problem with our current head of state is that he's an avowed pure Socialist.
May 15, 2014 21:54:22 #
venturer9
Loc: Newton, Il.
Peter-S wrote:
And England never would have survived WWII without it...
OH NO.. England never would have survived WWII with out the USA.......
Mike
May 15, 2014 23:27:17 #
yhtomit wrote:
I can't help but notice that our liberal friends are a no show.Great post.Thanx.
I wonder if our totally socialist military in US would agree, its that way in UK too!
You sign up and do their bidding under pain of law. They pay you, they feed you, provide healthcare, housing, clothe you, educate you and on and on.
May 15, 2014 23:37:28 #
wlgoode wrote:
I wonder if our totally socialist military in US would agree, its that way in UK too!
You sign up and do their bidding under pain of law. They pay you, they feed you, provide healthcare, housing, clothe you, educate you and on and on.
You sign up and do their bidding under pain of law. They pay you, they feed you, provide healthcare, housing, clothe you, educate you and on and on.
Your reaching Goodie.
May 16, 2014 01:40:33 #
SteveR wrote:
Your reaching Goodie.
yep reaching for the obvious plain truth. How would you describe socialism other than that?
May 16, 2014 06:44:43 #
wlgoode wrote:
I wonder if our totally socialist military in US would agree, its that way in UK too!
You sign up and do their bidding under pain of law. They pay you, they feed you, provide healthcare, housing, clothe you, educate you and on and on.
You sign up and do their bidding under pain of law. They pay you, they feed you, provide healthcare, housing, clothe you, educate you and on and on.
And you want this for the rest of the U.S. population? Of course, this is the the military and is far from being a Socialist military. Are you for Socialism? The giving up of your property, your wealth, your intellectual freedom as well as personal freedom for a government that has total control of your country? All of this for whose greater good?
May 16, 2014 06:56:01 #
Bangee5 wrote:
And you want this for the rest of the U.S. population? Of course, this is the the military and is far from being a Socialist military. Are you for Socialism? The giving up of your property, your wealth, your intellectual freedom as well as personal freedom for a government that has total control of your country? All of this for whose greater good?
That's rather an extreme view, and really describes Russian communism from many years ago. We have the Labour Party in the UK, which would describe itself as socialist rather than conservative. It is left wing rather than right wing, which means, in its simplest terms, that is concerned more with the "working class" than the wealthy, who are seen as the concern of the Conservative party.
May 16, 2014 07:17:14 #
rocar7 wrote:
That's rather an extreme view, and really describes Russian communism from many years ago. We have the Labour Party in the UK, which would describe itself as socialist rather than conservative. It is left wing rather than right wing, which means, in its simplest terms, that is concerned more with the "working class" than the wealthy, who are seen as the concern of the Conservative party.
How has it come about that it is the liberals who care more about the poor, ie; working class than the conservatives? Who determines this and by what measure? There are poor liberals as well as poor conservatives. Like wise, wealthy liberals and wealthy conservatives. The only difference I have ever seen or heard is that the liberals say give me, give me and the conservative says I'll work for mine. The liberal wants to throw other peoples money at a problem without fixing the problem and the conservative says lets fix the problem before putting more money into it.
Now, I am sure that you can make your liberal views look better than my conservative view. We all look at the world differently. I grew up being taught that socialism is bad and capitalism good. Now, the socialist want to teach our children that socialism good, capitalism bad when it was capitalism that made this country what she is today. Maybe those in the UK has never had a taste of freedom that we have enjoyed and have fought so hard to keep. Too give it up now? I don't know what to say.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.