Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:
IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.
Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"
When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.
Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.
Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002
It seems you have concluded Plutocrats, their greed and exploitation of labor, have not created the greatest divide of wealth since the Gilded Age. Using Ayn Rand as anything more than a kook nearly made me LOL and mess my screen with coffee.
Government on all levels grows along with the growth of population, and the tides of change.
We agree, Home Land Security in reaction to 9-11 was a desperate solution to a White House shaken; Bush&Co. knew they had to do something or be seen as incompetent. Two decades later we still need to take off our shoes and wait in long lines to enter a commercial aircraft.
Obama and the Democrats understood that health care costs had risen every year for decades, and that too many people lost their homes and nest eggs when seriously ill or injured, & if they
needed surgery along with long term care. Some lost their jobs and health insurance, and some of them had preexisting condition and no longer could buy health insurance; & the cost of drugs necessary to keep diabetics, cardiac and cancer patients, etc. were too expensive.
Of course Medicare was demeaned as Socialism in the 60's, HRC was demeaned when she was put in charge of Healthcare reform, and the misogynists screamed holy hell; and once again, when reform was discussed the Medical Pharmaceutical Complex screamed Socialism, and the GOP established the Tea Party.
Then the GOP had the audacity as to claim the current Tax Bill (Passed by a lame duck H. or Rep. in 2017) claimed it was a tax reform aiding the Middle Class. A total load of bullshit.
Yeah, I don't agree with your "everybody owes me" POV but I do appreciate how passionately you believe it. You did manage to hit pretty much every lame, knee-jerk socialist talking point - including but not limited to "Ayn Rand the boogie man" so … congratulations.
So your bottom line is bigger, more corrupt central gov't control of our lives is a good idea? Yeah … no thanks.Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:
IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.
Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"
When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.
Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.
Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002
It seems you have concluded Plutocrats, their greed and exploitation of labor, have not created the greatest divide of wealth since the Gilded Age. Using Ayn Rand as anything more than a kook nearly made me LOL and mess my screen with coffee.
Government on all levels grows along with the growth of population, and the tides of change.
We agree, Home Land Security in reaction to 9-11 was a desperate solution to a White House shaken; Bush&Co. knew they had to do something or be seen as incompetent. Two decades later we still need to take off our shoes and wait in long lines to enter a commercial aircraft.
Obama and the Democrats understood that health care costs had risen every year for decades, and that too many people lost their homes and nest eggs when seriously ill or injured, & if they
needed surgery along with long term care. Some lost their jobs and health insurance, and some of them had preexisting condition and no longer could buy health insurance; & the cost of drugs necessary to keep diabetics, cardiac and cancer patients, etc. were too expensive.
Of course Medicare was demeaned as Socialism in the 60's, HRC was demeaned when she was put in charge of Healthcare reform, and the misogynists screamed holy hell; and once again, when reform was discussed the Medical Pharmaceutical Complex screamed Socialism, and the GOP established the Tea Party.
Then the GOP had the audacity as to claim the current Tax Bill (Passed by a lame duck H. or Rep. in 2017) claimed it was a tax reform aiding the Middle Class. A total load of bullshit.
Yeah, I don't agree with your "everybody owes me" POV but I do appreciate how passionately you believe it. You did manage to hit pretty much every lame, knee-jerk socialist talking point - including but not limited to "Ayn Rand the boogie man" so … congratulations.
Gee, so many words to post an ad hominem, but, it remains an Idiot-Gram. That said, I read much that Ayn Rand wrote, and that was in my Sr. Year in High School, and Freshman year at CAL. I found her main character (and her, by inference) anti social; even at 17 I knew rape was not only wrong, but evil.
Socialism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The problem being; who decides who "needs" what. The more equal leaders (top dogs in the pack).? How did they get to be top dogs? Democratically? Then who represents the minority? Who sees the minority isn't oven looked in the redistribution of goods and/or services? A bureaucrat who draws his goods and services from who? Or, is everyone supposed to just oblige those who didn't vote a certain way? How will that be enFORCED? Will the enFORCEment be fair?
"Needs" are, air, water, food, shelter and clothing. The last two are optional depending on climate and mores.
So, what we have really boils down to; from each share what you have justly acquired with others who want what you have but don't, for whatever reason, don't have.
Indeed- I also posited some questions that beg answering- the alleged conservatives who worship at the alter of godvernment are no different and no better than the alleged liberals who do the same thing. They just each prefer their church leader be in charge.I get it, you simplified a phrase attributed to Karl Marx, and as we all know "commie" is the favorite word used by the ignorant faux conservatives who support trump.
Your bottom line is bigger more corrupt central government giving benes to the rich.So your bottom line is bigger, more corrupt central gov't control of our lives is a good idea? Yeah … no thanks.Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:
IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.
Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"
When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.
Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.
Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002
It seems you have concluded Plutocrats, their greed and exploitation of labor, have not created the greatest divide of wealth since the Gilded Age. Using Ayn Rand as anything more than a kook nearly made me LOL and mess my screen with coffee.
Government on all levels grows along with the growth of population, and the tides of change.
We agree, Home Land Security in reaction to 9-11 was a desperate solution to a White House shaken; Bush&Co. knew they had to do something or be seen as incompetent. Two decades later we still need to take off our shoes and wait in long lines to enter a commercial aircraft.
Obama and the Democrats understood that health care costs had risen every year for decades, and that too many people lost their homes and nest eggs when seriously ill or injured, & if they
needed surgery along with long term care. Some lost their jobs and health insurance, and some of them had preexisting condition and no longer could buy health insurance; & the cost of drugs necessary to keep diabetics, cardiac and cancer patients, etc. were too expensive.
Of course Medicare was demeaned as Socialism in the 60's, HRC was demeaned when she was put in charge of Healthcare reform, and the misogynists screamed holy hell; and once again, when reform was discussed the Medical Pharmaceutical Complex screamed Socialism, and the GOP established the Tea Party.
Then the GOP had the audacity as to claim the current Tax Bill (Passed by a lame duck H. or Rep. in 2017) claimed it was a tax reform aiding the Middle Class. A total load of bullshit.
Yeah, I don't agree with your "everybody owes me" POV but I do appreciate how passionately you believe it. You did manage to hit pretty much every lame, knee-jerk socialist talking point - including but not limited to "Ayn Rand the boogie man" so … congratulations.
Gee, so many words to post an ad hominem, but, it remains an Idiot-Gram. That said, I read much that Ayn Rand wrote, and that was in my Sr. Year in High School, and Freshman year at CAL. I found her main character (and her, by inference) anti social; even at 17 I knew rape was not only wrong, but evil.
I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.
Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.
LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".
Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?
Agreed. It’s amazing how ignorant and blind many Americans are to the game the elites are playing. These same fools condemn anyone who wants fairness in government.Looking at the evolution of central government in the U.S. and the infiltration of business representatives into government positions, it is impossible to see how capitalists can complain that they are under attack. Congress does as megabucks dictates, even bailing out the entire American capitalist game when it was run into the ground by the grossly criminal banks and investment houses.
Worries about 'socialism', especially by those who display dismally little about it, are a laughable exercise.
Jesus...I’ve done that numerous times. Asking such a question exposes your ignorance.Agreed. It’s amazing how ignorant and blind many Americans are to the game the elites are playing. These same fools condemn anyone who wants fairness in government.Looking at the evolution of central government in the U.S. and the infiltration of business representatives into government positions, it is impossible to see how capitalists can complain that they are under attack. Congress does as megabucks dictates, even bailing out the entire American capitalist game when it was run into the ground by the grossly criminal banks and investment houses.
Worries about 'socialism', especially by those who display dismally little about it, are a laughable exercise.
define "fairness in government", specifically what is not fair today in the USA?
Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.
LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".
Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?
the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
But the corrupt government, run by corporations - surely we can trust them to take care of us. All they need is a little more power.Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".
Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?
the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
Probably right. Certainly right if we don’t change the potus. Bernie might be successful in changing some things. It’s worth a shot.But the corrupt government, run by corporations - surely we can trust them to take care of us. All they need is a little more power.Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.
Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?
the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
Bend over.
The first thing we must do is put government in charge of providing for all our needs. Then we'll be taken care of properly.Probably right. Certainly right if we don’t change the potus. Bernie might be successful in changing some things. It’s worth a shot.But the corrupt government, run by corporations - surely we can trust them to take care of us. All they need is a little more power.Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?
the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
Bend over.
I sorta figured this one would draw crickets.Seriously though, what is inane about the observation that the government is both controlled by wealthy interests, and calling the shots via regulation? That's why the wealthy interests want to control it in the first place.Not confuse … amuse. I find online inanity humorous. Meanwhile you rightly castigated Gipper for his inanity.Wait … haven't you been whining that gov't is controlled by super-wealthy interests? Now you claim the gov't is calling the shots?They can think of many in Venezuela.
The government does not own the farms.
The government doesn't need technical ownership to control something. If government is footing the bill, government is calling the shots.
Yes. Why does this confuse you?
So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?
Farmers are some of the biggest recipients of socialism in this nation. Funny how the cries about big gubmint socialism never seem to apply to hayseeds and other flyover folks.
Does anyone actually want to get rid of corporate welfare? Outside of libertarians that is?Farmers are some of the biggest recipients of socialism in this nation. Funny how the cries about big gubmint socialism never seem to apply to hayseeds and other flyover folks.
Or bankers. Or the auto industry. Or real estate. Thanks, Obama.
Does anyone actually want to get rid of corporate welfare? Outside of libertarians that is.Farmers are some of the biggest recipients of socialism in this nation. Funny how the cries about big gubmint socialism never seem to apply to hayseeds and other flyover folks.
Or bankers. Or the auto industry. Or real estate. Thanks, Obama.
I know you believe that is what Bernie intends, but you’re wrong.The first thing we must do is put government in charge of providing for all our needs. Then we'll be taken care of properly.Probably right. Certainly right if we don’t change the potus. Bernie might be successful in changing some things. It’s worth a shot.But the corrupt government, run by corporations - surely we can trust them to take care of us. All they need is a little more power.Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.
the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
Bend over.
I don't know what Bernie intends. But it seems to be what you want.I know you believe that is what Bernie intends, but you’re wrong.The first thing we must do is put government in charge of providing for all our needs. Then we'll be taken care of properly.Probably right. Certainly right if we don’t change the potus. Bernie might be successful in changing some things. It’s worth a shot.But the corrupt government, run by corporations - surely we can trust them to take care of us. All they need is a little more power.Means nothing. They live in an extremely wealthy country with a government that doesn’t give a fuck about them. I guess you don’t either.the so called poor in the USA are better off than the middle class in the rest of the world. You are FOS
Bend over.
Yeah. It's a fucking joke. They bitch about how much power corporations have, but bail them out whenever they fuck up.Does anyone actually want to get rid of corporate welfare? Outside of libertarians that is.Farmers are some of the biggest recipients of socialism in this nation. Funny how the cries about big gubmint socialism never seem to apply to hayseeds and other flyover folks.
Or bankers. Or the auto industry. Or real estate. Thanks, Obama.
I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I've always had a problem with the 'too big to fail' concept.
