That was an era of kings and queens soon vanished by WWI. Well Winnie needed cases of booze to erect his construct of history- and throw in cigars. He was not a democrat but a supporter of the British Empire and monarchy.// It is human nature. Man will always attempt to control his enviornment. Now this attempt can take several approaches, however.//Socialism has a bad name via Hitler.
On Oct 12, 5:34 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Poor old Communist Russia threw out the czars and turned over control > of the country to the masses. Russia was invaded by 16 capitalist > countries 1919 including Britain, America and Australia, to smash the > revolution as they feared loosing their positions of power in their > own countries. As Winston Churchill said at the time "we must strangle > the Bolshevick baby in it's cradle", that's western democracy for you. > Let's change a regime that threatens us. > > Its not human nature. Man is a product of his enviornment. Capitalism > rewards greed and avarice with power and wealth, socialism rewards > individuals working for common goals that they decide are impotant. > > On Oct 13, 8:54 am, rigsy03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The Communists in Russia created their own heirarchy after the czars. > > It's human nature.// Obama and his Democratic Congress may be walking > > into a mine field! > > > On Oct 12, 4:41 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > American capitalism is alive and well, and it won't be dying-off any > > > time > > > soon. Americans now need to decide whether it is best to elect a > > > President > > > who will nurture the world's preferred economic system, or one whose > > > passion > > > it is to weaken it. " > > > > Preferred by whom? The exploiters of the world’s people, well I am > > > sure they prefer it, someone in Ethiopia may have a different opinion > > > obout starving to death for someone else’s profit’s and gee, I'd hate > > > to see it when it was about to collapse if you call this well. > > > > Good to see Obama is a Socialist; no doubt he will expropriate the > > > means of production and put it in the hands of the working class, > > > enact laws to take education and health care out of the hands of > > > corporations, nationalize them and make them free for all. All banks > > > will be amalgamated into one state bank with fixed low interest rates. > > > > He will pull out of all war of imperialist aggression and disband the > > > armed forces replacing them with the people’s militia--the red army > > > > After he has done all this, he will then step down from the presidency > > > and put the control of humanity in the hands of humanity itself. > > > > How can I get to vote for him? > > > > On Oct 13, 2:01 am, "Keith In Tampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > *Why Not A Dramatic Tax Increase On 'Rich People?" Ask Obama* > > > > > by Austin Hill > > > > Sunday, October 12, 2008 > > > > >http://townhall.com/Columnists/AustinHill/2008/10/12/why_not_a_dramat... > > > > > [Q] "For most of his nearly 21-month presidential campaign, Senator > > > > Obama > > > > has made a cottage industry out of hating free market enterprise. He has > > > > proposed governmental limits on corporate executive salaries. He has > > > > repeatedly expressed indignation over "excessive" corporate profits. He > > > > has > > > > promised to "reign-in" free trade, and has promised to instill "economic > > > > justice" in America (he has never clarified what he means when he says > > > > "economic justice," but he has made it clear that America's economy is > > > > necessarily unjust). > > > > > And more than any other economic idea, Obama has throughout his campaign > > > > reiterated that it is time to end "Bush's tax cuts for the rich." The > > > > term > > > > itself is misleading, in as much as earlier this decade President Bush > > > > and > > > > the U.S. Congress cut taxes across the board, not merely for "rich > > > > people." > > > > But never mind the facts, Obama has hit political homeruns by putting a > > > > bullseye on the backs of America's highest income earners. > > > > > Yet last week Obama backed-off from eliminating Bush's dastardly "tax > > > > cuts > > > > for the rich," insisting that, because of Bush's ailing economy, it > > > > won't be > > > > feasible to raise taxes on the wealthy right away. But why not? His > > > > sudden > > > > change of heart tells us two things: A) some significant portion of the > > > > American electorate is NOT enchanted by his politics of class warfare > > > > and > > > > envy; and B) just like those of the world's finance ministers, the > > > > instincts > > > > of many Americans lead them to understand that wealth creation and > > > > productivity comes from the private sector, not from government - - not > > > > even > > > > from an Obama government. > > > > > American capitalism is alive and well, and it won't be dying-off any > > > > time > > > > soon. Americans now need to decide whether it is best to elect a > > > > President > > > > who will nurture the world's preferred economic system, or one whose > > > > passion > > > > it is to weaken it. " > > > > >http://townhall.com/Columnists/AustinHill/2008/10/12/why_not_a_dramat...quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
