A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Larry C says:
===============
The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best.

But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.
==============

Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet.

And we like it that way...and intend to keep it that way.

YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

Tough noogies. We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda (or whatever dogma you prefer) merely because you don't
like our system of government.


I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions.

Well, it's because we are smart enough to learn the lessons of history that
prove that socialism is an unworkable political concept and that
representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to ensure
liberty, freedom and justice for all.

The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue".

"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

Hopefully the rest of the western world will come to their senses.

There's a reason that we're the most powerful and influential nation on the
face of the earth, and socialism is not it.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to
anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected
government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform
to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays).
Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser?

All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a
favor; don't foist your notions on us.

Cheers,
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up?

It's implicit in your arguments.

Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

Go find a dictionary.


Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to
anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected
government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform
to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays).

Quite right.

Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser?

Depends. If we view the government of another country as being dangerous to
our national interests, or if we feel that the government is a totalitarian
regime that oppresses people, we may choose to intervene and facilitate a
regime change.


All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a
favor; don't foist your notions on us.

Why not? Our notions are good ones, and I have no compunctions about
"foisting" them upon tyrants and totalitarian regimes in order that the
people who live under oppression are given the opportunity to choose freely
what form of government will best security the blessings of liberty for
them. Nor will I shrink from "foisting" them upon nations that pose a threat
to the security or national interests of the United States. If you don't
like that, too bad. If you threaten us, however indirectly, we will act.

If that ends up being, for example, a democratically-elected theocracy, so
be it. All we require is that the people be given a legitimate opportunity
to make that choice freely and that the resulting government not threaten
world peace, regional stability or US strategic interests, and that it
continue to regularly provide for free elections to validate the choice.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to
anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected
government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform
to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays).
Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser?

All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a
favor; don't foist your notions on us.

Cheers,
frtzw906

Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to
anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected
government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform
to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays).
Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser?

All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a
favor; don't foist your notions on us.

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as
explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is.

Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the U.S.,
or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably believes
it as well. :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What
suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by
"socialism"?

He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as
explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is.

Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the
U.S.,
or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably
believes
it as well. :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Hey Wilko, I don't know about this socialism thing, that has been
brought up. But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism. I am not so much interested at this time in the merits of
the various systems, just what the basic definitions would be. TnT

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.


I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic
system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

I would agree with you on this one, though the identifying
characteristic of the US indicates stronger individual participation in
the social model. It may be in individual corruption, instead of mass
corporate corruption, but even that is changing as we watch Enron, etc.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that
the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be
found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many
research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for
massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it
certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases
[historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of
the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a
knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

Eisenhower warned us of the growing military/industrial complex after
WW2. We have seen creeping socialism more and more in USA. Not just
Defense, but Education, Arts, Interior resources like national forest
and oil. All we need to do is go out and try to drill an oil well on
your own land, and we would have all kinds of federal visitors telling
us we can't do that. Or try starting a grade school without approval of
some agency. Try starting a resturant, and here come the food
inspectors. And anyone can get a grant for some crazy scheme as long as
you are willing to have Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder.

I am self employed small business owner. If I get too big, I would have
to incorporate, which is just another way that Uncle Sam is always
there. So yeah there is plenty of social involvement in our government.
I choose to stay small and below the radar. I don't take any handouts,
which may mean I will never make the top 500 companies, but that is the
price of freedom, but then my knickers are not in a knot!

I also find that generally the conservatives try to go down the
socialistic slide slower than the liberals, at least in areas that
normally affect me on a daily basis! Selfish isolation, I know, but I
just want to be left alone. Red or Blue, I really don't care the color
of the hat of the task masters! TnT

TnT says:
=======================
I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.
=====================

But clearly, from what you've said, you canNOT understand the
distinction. And it is not a fine line.

cheers,
frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++