Socialist America

Well, here we are in a real economic pickle ... the likes that we've never seen before. Who knows if it'll end up being a depression, but we're definitely in a recession ... maybe a deep one. We're giving handouts to financial institutions that really deserve to fail and we're not even sure these handouts will have a positive impact ... they may not change a thing. In my opinion, these bailouts are nothing more than a prop to keep the markets from collapsing immediately, allowing the elites and corporate thugs enough time to get their money out and put it into safer locations around the world. Once the billionaires and multi-millionaires club members get their money sured up the bottom will probably fall out of the whole thing and into a depression we'll go.

A depression would give some in Congress, now, the rightaway to implementing their socialist ideologies, just like what happened during the Great Depression under the Roosevelt administration. Most people believe, and history teaches, that Roosevelt saved us from the Great Depression, but in fact he prolonged the depression we were suffering here in the United States. Other countries around the world were in a depression too, but theirs' weren't "Great" ... ours was! What made it "Great" was the duration of it, and what made it last so long was the policies of Roosevelt. Roosevelt and progressive (liberal) members of Congress used the Great Depression as a means to enact the New Deal. By the time the New Deal was enacted, we really needed it, but it would have never been needed at all if Roosevelt and the progressives (liberals) did things differently ... because the depression wouldn't have lasted nearly as long. The market crash of 1929 would have been just another blip on the radar, but instead it was made worse by poor handling of Roosevelt (and Hoover), and it was drawn out for years by Roosevelt, and some believe purposefully in order to get the American people in such a desperate state that they'd be willing to accept anything the progressives wanted to subject us to, just to get some relief from the hard times.

Well, here we go again. Liberal members of Congress (they call themselves "Progressives" now) are licking their chops right now. They see this as "their time"; their golden opportunity to push through their legislation and subject all of America to all of their radical ideologies. These are people who want government to control virtually every aspect of our society. They want to nationalize health care, enforce stricter environmental laws (which will affect everyone who burns coal ... from business owners to home owners), restrict our rights to own firearms, and tell us when, where, and how we can worship. You think I'm kidding? Just listen to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and speeches of "The One" and listen close. What you hear from them is only the tip of the iceberg. They don't tell you that they'd like us to be like Europe (no offense to Europeans ... it's not your fault, but your governments'). They don't tell you that they'd like for us to be an "anything goes" society ... an anything goes society as long as it involves the freedom to be immoral while supressing and opressing our long standing traditions such as marriage and the right to worship as we want. They want us to have more labor unions, but have you noticed who the labor unions are fighting for now? The labor unions are fighting for people who aren't even citizens of this country. They aren't standing up for the American jobs that are lost to China, India, and Mexico almost everyday. The union bosses aren't standing up for hard working Americans anymore. They're standing up, or sticking their hands out rather, for people who are in this country working illegally ... all while you and I and every other American are paying their tax burden and medical expenses. This is the kind of country the liberal Congressmen and liberal judges throughout this country wants. They want you and I to be dependant on them, the government, for our every need. What better way to get your votes? No one bites the hands that feed them, right?

My point is that radical ideas and "change" can be easily accomplished by those in power during desperate times. It looks like there will be a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat (also known as "The One") in the White House come January of '09, and yes will we have "change" in this country, but it might not be the kind of change that most Americans want. It will be the type of change that brings us one step closer to socialism. And to be fair, it's not only the Democrats who are pushing us towards socialism. The Republicans want to take control of the banking system in this country and regulate it (and it does need some level of regulation now, because it is so corrupt). The average American loses no matter how they vote this fall. We are 30 days away from moving closer to being a socialist country. Rome is burning folks. It is scary times.

This is just my take on what seems to be coming down the pipeline here in America. This is no longer the same country that my parents and grand parents fought for and loved with all their hearts. God help us all.

swva wrote:God help us all.

AMEN

swva wrote:They don't tell you that they'd like for us to be an "anything goes" society ... an anything goes society as long as it involves the freedom to be immoral while supressing and opressing our long standing traditions such as marriage and the right to worship as we want.

The government should not be in the business of legislating morality in a religious context. 1920's Prohibition is a good example of failed moral legislation, the current "war on drugs" is becoming another. The only things that gets "hurt" by gay marriage is the insurance company's profits, taxation revenue (joint vs single filing) and some people's religious views. For that matter, the per child tax credit is wrong also. I also don't ever recall hearing either party talk about limiting practice of any religion - cite references if you have any.

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is no concern of mine or the government's.

There should be a 100% separation of church and state, period.

swva wrote:Democrats who are pushing us towards socialism. The Republicans want to take control of the banking system in this country and regulate it (and it does need some level of regulation now, because it is so corrupt).

What do you call nationalization of private business' ?

swva wrote:The average American loses no matter how they vote this fall.

Now on THAT we agree 100% !

I couldn't argee with you more !

SWVA ~ You did an excellent job of getting a lasso around this swirling pile of stuff we find dropping all over us.I find the vacuum of leadership in Washington is yet another apalling disregard for the interests of the American people.What frightens me is we are probably experiencing the quiet before the real storm.Continued stock market freefall,? dollar driven out of the world monetary system,? loss of basic long established programs in this country,? anything is possible right now. Just look at the choice of leadersip we have to escort the country thru this quagmire and we all should worry.I have extra room for worry now that the 401k is gone,I'll fit this stuff in its place.

djackman wrote:The government should not be in the business of legislating morality in a religious context.

You're right because that'd make our government a theocracy, however legislating morality from a historical context based on long standing traditions and heritage is quite acceptable. Issues of laws regarding morality should be left up to the people themselves through referendum instead of letting the 'tail wag the dog'. Let the constituents decide it for themselves, by ballot.

djackman wrote:What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is no concern of mine or the government's.

agreed ... it's none of their business, but when it is pushed on our kindergarteners in an attempt to desensitize them, then that's a different story altogether.

djackman wrote:There should be a 100% separation of church and state, period.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a "separation of church and state", and if you read Jefferson's correspondance in which this phrase is mentioned, it was said with the meaning of protecting the church from the government so that government couldn't restrict individuals from religious freedoms they had the God given right to. That's one of the reasons our ancestors set sail for this land in the first place ... the aristocracy decided there was only one way a person could worship and everything else was witchcraft or what not. Liberals like to spin this and use it to their advantage saying that the government is promoting a religion by allowing the Ten Commandments (a historical artifact/document) to be displayed or by allowing our school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word "God" in it, and etc.

Liberals like to preach about tolerance but they have no tolerance for anything that doesn't line up with their ideology. When someone pulls the separation of church and state card, what they are really saying is "Let's have immoral parades in the streets and show off our sexuality to the whole world ... let's call abortion a woman's right to privacy ... let's call Christmas the 'Winter holiday' .... let's make the next generation of Americans just like us by pushing the Cross out of the eye of the public ... let's make the next generation just like us by telling our children we came from a mud puddle and let them hear no other ideas of our origins so they can decide for themselves .... let's keep those who disagree with us from speaking publicly at our colleges by enciting violent disruptions and keep those speakers from being heard ... let's shutdown the church by passing legislation that makes it a crime of hate to say 'homosexuality is immoral' from the pulpit of churches or when a church refuses to marry couples of the same sex within their church ... let's allow our liberal ideas to flourish on college campuses, but let's supress the ideas of those who disagree with us ... let's make the next generation just like us by pushing the Christian God so far out of society that they'll never have the chance to know who He is". The level of intolerance of liberals who preach tolerance themselves is essentially hypocrisy and facism. Hitler and the communists of the world liked to silence those who disagreed with them too and we saw what that leads to. Dare I say most conservatives are more tolerant and more rational than most liberals on issues of morality are religion?

djackman wrote:What do you call nationalization of private business' ?

I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. If you mean the government interfering with private business to level that it supresses a business' growth by taxing it to death in order to fund their liberal agendas, then I'd call this socialism and communism to varying degrees.


I'm glad that we agree there is no one to vote for this fall ... they're both as corrupt as can be and are not capable of straightening out this economy.

swva wrote:Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a "separation of church and state", and if you read Jefferson's correspondance in which this phrase is mentioned, it was said with the meaning of protecting the church from the government so that government couldn't restrict individuals from religious freedoms they had the God given right to. That's one of the reasons our ancestors set sail for this land in the first place

Welcome aboard swva.

swva, my first reaction was just to dismiss you as a nutcase -- blaming all our country's problems for the last eighty years on some monolithic "liberal" conspiracy that transcends generations in its unified quest to destroy the values of the country. I assure you, we liberals aren't nearly that well organized, nor are we agreed on any common set of goals. But you’re not nuts, you have just fallen into the polarization trap laid by politicians, left and right. Everybody gets alarmed about an "enemy" and feels the need to fight. So our left wing politicians label the right wing as "enemy", and our right wing politicians label the left wing as "enemy", they make us both feel isolated and threatened, and meanwhile they take turns in Washington holding power and accepting money from the banks and the corporations and the unions and adjusting the rules so all of those can continue screwing the rest of us. (By the way, have you noticed that since the fall of the USSR, they can’t get us to focus on that enemy, so they have set us at each others’ throats instead.)

The reality is, there are small left wing and right wing extremes, but there is a massive “middle” in this country. You and I probably agree on 98 percent of issues that affect our nation, and we probably disagree violently on 2 percent. For example in another thread you mentioned that your conservative 401k is shot. Well, my liberal 401k is shot too, and nobody is coming to my rescue any more than to yours. I recall precious few legislators in either party over the last 5 years protesting the free-for-all wheeling and dealing that got the country into this mess. Meanwhile, the bastards keep us focused on and fighting over 2 percent, and the 98 percent we both want never gets done.

John McCain has a proposal on the record to have the federal government buy up all the bad mortgage debt and you're calling the democrats socialists???

The democrats and the republicans are equally socialist at this point.

Palin is the governor of the most socialist state in the nation.

rberq wrote:swva, my first reaction was just to dismiss you as a nutcase -- blaming all our country's problems for the last eighty years on some monolithic "liberal" conspiracy that transcends generations in its unified quest to destroy the values of the country.

Bob, the Democrat party is not the same party that your parents and grandparents voted for, and gee, thanks for not ruling me a nutcase ... I appreciate that. Just to be clear, I'm not a Republican, Democrat, or Independent ... I'm a Conservative. If there were a good Democrat running for president or Congress I wouldn't hesitate a second to vote for them. Heath Schuler of TN is one such Democrat I'd easily vote for. I agree with you about the goons in D.C. keeping us occupied fighting each other while they're there fighting each other for power and dirty lobbyist money. All I'm saying by this post is that if you thought the Bush Administration had the green light to break the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism, just wait until Obama, Pelosi, and Reid push their agendas through an uncontested Congress in 2009 in the name of saving our economy. Money is the closest things to most peoples' hearts in this country and to save it we'll go along with about anything the ruling parties offer up ... and it looks like we'll have to agree with it whether we like it or not when the Republican opposition in Congress doesn't have enough votes to stop the bad legislation that'll get pushed down our throats in the coming years. We'll have the "change" that Obama keeps talking about, but it may not be the kind of change we want.

ErikLaurence wrote:John McCain has a proposal on the record to have the federal government buy up all the bad mortgage debt and you're calling the democrats socialists???

The democrats and the republicans are equally socialist at this point.

Palin is the governor of the most socialist state in the nation.

I never said I support John McCain ... I think he's just as corrupt as most on Capitol Hill. He's definitely not a Conservative. And the bad mortgage debt he'd buy up is that of the rich, not the middle class.

The Democrats and Republicans aren't looking out for the best interests of this country, that's for sure. They're in D.C. looking out for themselves by taking as much lobbyist money as they can. I don't think most people realize this though, otherwise they'd be talking about voting out all the incumbents this fall, regardless if they're Republican or Democrat. That's how I'm going to vote for the Congressional seats in my state. Vote the bums out.

Well, I'd go along with voting all the bums out, except that means voting IN the bums already hand-picked and approved by the opposite party, which we want to vote out at the same time. So, what is there to do?

rberq wrote:Well, I'd go along with voting all the bums out, except that means voting IN the bums already hand-picked and approved by the opposite party, which we want to vote out at the same time. So, what is there to do?

I guess we just get herded along like cattle and either like what we get or not.

Rome is burning.

What upsets me the most about both parties is that neither care about all the jobs being lost to China and the rest of the world, and not acknowledge that that has a significant role in the current economic crisis we're in. How could they expect anyone to pay their ARM when they're working at McDonalds because their factory recently shutdown and moved to China? And I hate the fact that the elite will protect their own. There may be one or two CEOs going to prison, offered up as a sacrifice to the people to keep us pacified, for the fraud and corruptness we've been witnessing, but what I really want is accountability for ALL of those who are corrupt on Wall Street and in the corporations. There are rules for the elite and there are rules for you and I. We are not held to the same standards when it comes to breaking the law.

rberq wrote:Well, I'd go along with voting all the bums out, except that means voting IN the bums already hand-picked and approved by the opposite party, which we want to vote out at the same time. So, what is there to do?

Keep voting the bums out, and after a cycle or 2 they would get it.