Why? Though I might argue that US might be better off breaking up into 9 geographical counties, each focusing on it's own needs. The problem with free enterprise other than small businesses is that it get gamed by egotists who want to become "kings of the world." And then you start seeing the corporate wars like Apple vs Google vs Microsoft vs Samsung (yada, yada, yada). Makes me so mad I'd love to punish the C students who wound up starting these companies by making whole world socialist for a few centuries.
And I just love to hear the justifications people have for capitalism and free enterprise. :-D On 06/09/2012 12:58 AM, Jason wrote: > > > Carde boy, is it possible that proper socialism works only > in countries with low population and sufficient land and > other resources? > > In countries with large population and scarcer resources, > the Scandinavian model of socialism is doubtful to work. > > --- cardemaister<no_reply@...> wrote: >> It seems to me in Amerika anybody who defends the underprivileged >> citizens, is for many people a "socialist"... >> >> OTOH, I'm almost not at all a homo politicus... :D >> >> >> >> --- "raunchydog"<raunchydog@> wrote: >>> >>> Billy, it's flat out silly that rightwingers think Obama is a socialist. >>> Obama's political compass points in the direction of self-aggrandizing >>> opportunity, not socialism. What's scary is that you believe this crap. >>> What's even scarier is that the American people can be brainwashed to >>> believe *anything.* In a dystopian future, the dupes of revisionist history >>> will serve their corporate masters well. >>> >>> If you can drag yourself away from the FOX News Lie Machine for a minute, >>> let's see if you can answer these not-so-distant political history >>> questions: >>> >>> 1. Did Reagan lower or raise the national debt? >>> 2. Were tax rates under Reagan lower or higher than under Clinton and Obama? >>> 3. Was Obama's "stimulus" package mostly tax cuts? >>> >>> Answers: >>> 1. Reagan raised the national debt. >>> 2. Tax rates were higher under Reagan. >>> 3. Obama's stimulus was mostly tax cuts. >>> >>> If you answered incorrectly, you have proven my point. Propaganda works. >>> >>> In Chicago Obama was just a pol stumping in the hizzy, following the path >>> of least resistance, New Party, or whatever the flavor of the day, so what? >>> Bill Maher had the sanest thing to say about Obama I've heard. "If Obama's >>> a socialist, he's a lousy socialist." >>> http://youtu.be/NJABF5_yBXA >>> >>> >>> >>> --- wgm4u<no_reply@> wrote: >>>> It is breaking, that is, new evidence of his socialist past has surfaced >>>> in the logs of the *New Party* just today; their goals and 'his' are scary >>>> if you ask me!! It all adds up, we now know Obama much better, IMO. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- "authfriend"<jstein@> wrote: >>>>> "(breaking)"--too funny. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- Emily Reyn<emilymae.reyn@> wrote: >>>>>> Whatever....this is insane. The reality is not even this. Obama has >>>>>> supported so many aspects of the Republican agenda, that there is likely >>>>>> a solid argument that could be made (not by me) for the idea that what >>>>>> we are really voting on is the difference between 2 Republican >>>>>> candidates. These scare tactics are pathetic and extreme. My >>>>>> grandparents forwarded me the National Review for years, back when it >>>>>> was bashing numbers of educational institutions for being "communist" - >>>>>> they were concerned about what my professors might be teaching me. The >>>>>> rag is completely over the top crazy in my view. >>>>>> > >
