RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US?

RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/14/2009 7:29:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Where you been? We already have it. What is half of the term "social security"? Go run for office on a platform of getting rid of SS and see how far you get. That's certainly the best overlooked reason on this thread for not wanting more of it. Unless you are viewing a broke system, that will fail without major modification a success. How do you know Social Security is "broken"? What are your sources? Feigned ignorance of a highly public and debated issue is not good for ones credibility, just because it's not politically convenient. A simple search resulted 13 million hits. Here's a recent snippet from a reuters article. Very short but shows its a real issue, which is what you seem to be confused about. http://www.reuters.com/article/telecomm/idUSTRS00005620080325 Also it's highly likely the current meltdown will only worsen those dates, as they rely on payroll based taxes, with less working for the foreseeable future, I'm sure more dire predictions will be forthcoming. See, providing a source to back up your assertion wasn't too difficult, now was it? If more people did that, then fact-based discussions, rather than mindless ideological rants, might be more prevalent, and more productive. BTW, the number of hits any particular google search turns up is not meaningful. UFO turned up 52 million hits, and UFOs, as in aliens from outer space, don't exist. [8D] At any rate, FICA and Medicare are easy enough to fix. Eliminate the arbitrary cutoff for "contributions". Treat all income, whatever the source, the same. So if Michael Eisner makes 150 million in stock options from Disney after he sells them, collect 6.5% for FICA and whatever the going rate is for Medicare. Voila! Fixed.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 3:09:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prinsexx In........Britain, Socialism was a cornerstone of academic debate and learning, was a cornerstone of trade unionism and on the tips of the tongues of ordinary workers digging and grovelling for their lives in the coal mines of the earth, selling their bodies for their meager share of the division of wealth. I'm from a mining village in a county that had the largest annual workers procession/parade in Europe (Durham Big Meeting - the miners' gala). Undoubtedly, there were active political elements among the miners, but the vast majority of the miners were apolitical at best and a good case could be put forth to suggest that many were actually quite conservative in their outlook. The essence of trade unions was not to effect equality among people; the essence was to protect the union members' property/labour/skill. In time honoured tradition, the left wing intelligensia believe that the working class are/were universally living in despair. They fail to realise that the working classes have led simple lives that enabled contentment for many. My Grandad was a miner, all of his mates were miners. They worked hard, had a garden with hens, vegetables, rabbits etc (they were self-sufficient to an extent that is unrecognisable in today's world), they went to the pub and to the football with their mates and took their wives and children to the seaside at weekends. Crucially, they had a strong sense of identity (which is a reason why the English middle classes are so fascinated with the English working classes: the working class have a strong sense of identity of which the middle class can only dream). If you ever spent time to talking to my mum, she will tell you that from her point of view it was a wonderful, happy, simple time, where life was filled with certainties and families spent a lot of time together. The most enlightening accounts of life as a miner are not from those waxing lyrical on a subject of which they know nothing; the most enlightening accounts are from those who worked in the mines and led a working class life. Selling their bodies for a meagre share of wealth? Hardly. More like working hard so they could build a family. An interesing point aside: the mine owner poured some of his wealth back into the village in which I was born and bred by building sporting facilities for the community. In sum, I was born and bred in a mining area, Uncles and Grandads were miners, and your post simply doesn't ring true. quote: ORIGINAL: Prinsexx I hate to say I told you so: but the unfolding of history is inevitable and we are in the fying stages of capitalism no matter what the Governments of the Western World still like to call themselves. Humans evolve. Ideas, perceptions, institutions, poetry, language etc. It is inconceivable that any political philosophy, limited or otherwise, will not be superceded by an evolved version. I would add, however, that boom and bust is an unavoidable part of economics and indeed individual human behaviour, so to suggest a recession is indicative of the end of Capitalism, well, it's limited at best.

corysub -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 4:28:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? There are many Americans who love the idea of Big Government and socialism. This is particularly true among those left of center...but many of us are on certain topics. I mean REALLY extreme left of center elitist liberals who feel they know best what is good for all of us more than we know, and that government...BIG Government...is the only road for us to take towards salvation. We see that now in the Executive and Congressional Branch of the government. It's really economics 101 that the MOST stimulus would be to give permanent tax cuts to people to spend as they feel they should...not the $300 or $500 one time payoff for political support. Instead we are getting a law that is full of shovel ready waste and the possibility for corruption that could concievably be the high water mark for our economy. The answer to your question probably is simply, MOST Americans prefer capitalism and the ability to make it their way not the governent highway. . Most of us are afraid that socialism could lead to abusive economics bringing "standardization" and totalitarion demands that will force us all to comply or be penalized. We see that in this joke of a stimulus package. As was discussed in another thread, there is now going to be a "health czar" (supposed to be Daschle) who will have money now to study medical treatment and come with cost-benefit treatments that YOUR doctor will be forced to utilize or face a letter with big black ink from the government threatening penalites. Americans don't believe in failed socialist economics which strive to control a person to a "standardized" leveling of the playing field not by pulling people up who have not achieved but by taking people down who have achieved. The best is yet to come on that nine letter word that really is a four letter word...as a verb being done to all of us this day. Excuse me, I have to go now.. my President wants me to bend over and hold my ankles.

Politesub53 -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 4:50:12 AM)
Cory, how would giving everyone tax cuts to spend as they like, ensure the banks start lending to one another again ? I had a wry smile at your "failed socialist economics" comment, in light of the current financial disaster on our hands.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 4:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Cory, how would giving everyone tax cuts to spend as they like, ensure the banks start lending to one another again ? It wouldn't, of course. The banks aren't lending because the current economic climate, and the climate of excess credit and spending, means banks have moved to a risk averse position. Tax cuts won't change the banks' risk assessment of the market and borrowers. Edited to add: rewarding failure is an oft cited discussion point on this board. Well, handing out tax relief to those who have taken on far more personal debt than they can handle? Surely the idea is to encourage responsibility. A period of having to embark on sound financial planning due to hard economic times, will do a lot of people a lot of good.

corysub -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 5:32:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Cory, how would giving everyone tax cuts to spend as they like, ensure the banks start lending to one another again ? I had a wry smile at your "failed socialist economics" comment, in light of the current financial disaster on our hands. Sorry.. I was talking about the "Stimulus Bill"...your right..we needed TARP one to stabilize the banking system and it looks as if Geithner might be adapting some of the same approach as Paulson..not surprising since as head of the New York Fed he had to be in on the conversations with Paulson and Bernake and the rest of the Fed Governors. With respect to the stimulus "thingy"....the more it's exposed the stronger the stench..from healthcare standardization, reversing the welfare limits that were so successful in taking people off the government cheese and getting them to work, to "shovel ready" projects that are really fixing roads and bridges that should have been done over the years but politicians channeled funds into programs that funded social programs. This Bill is going to allow a Governor lke mine in New Jersey to cover up his naked performance as the monetary tide was moving out....with federal funds. All across the land, democrat politicans are giggling with excitment over the largesse that taxpayers are sending their way with borrowed money. As far as our problems...I dare say that the socialist states of U.K., France, Germany and the others in Europe are not doing well at all..so the problem is global not just the capitalist U.S.

cjan -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 5:44:57 AM)
Banks aren't lending due to more than "the current economic climate". It's much more tangible than that. The foundation of the credit system is banks lending short term to one another and then loaning that money out to individuals and businesses long term. Banks don't have cash stuffed vaults, they have assets and balance sheets, that's what makes them viable or not. Banks are not lending short term to one another because they know that their assets consist of many so-called "toxic" loans mixed in with good loans. In short, they don't trust each other anymore. The solution to this problem is to temporarily nationalize the banks as Japan and Sweden did under similar circumstances. The toxic assets would go to "bad banks" while the "good banks" , being free of said toxic loans, would be viable and resume lending. The toxic assets would be sold to investors at a discount. When Sweden did this, the result was that the government ( read tax payers ) actually made a small profit on money invested to "bail out " the banks. Oh, but wait...nationalizing the banks would be socialism and an unacceptable level of Big Government meddling in the "free market". Never mind...enjoy the depression.

Politesub53 -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 5:49:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Funny how unemployment wasn't ever a problem in Eastern Europe until the Western businesses arrived.. Stella how about a few facts to back up your comments ? Lech Walesa joined an illegal Union for what reason ( yep he was made redundant ) This in the 70s long before your claim of big business ruining everything.

Politesub53 -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 5:53:28 AM)
Cory... Just between ourselves, the UK isnt a socialist state. It is a capaitalist state where many of us hold social ideals. Dont tell anyone though [;)]

FullCircle -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 5:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Cory... Just between ourselves, the UK isnt a socialist state. It is a capaitalist state where many of us hold social ideals. Dont tell anyone though [;)] Politesub53 don't you know you can only have the American dream if you live in America? They are the only true capitalists, we know nothing of putting profit above the needs of society, can't you see this from our history of war and world domination. They’ll think they invented dreaming itself next.

UPSG -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 10:39:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? There are many Americans who love the idea of Big Government and socialism. This is particularly true among those left of center...but many of us are on certain topics. I mean REALLY extreme left of center elitist liberals who feel they know best what is good for all of us more than we know, and that government...BIG Government...is the only road for us to take towards salvation. We see that now in the Executive and Congressional Branch of the government. It's really economics 101 that the MOST stimulus would be to give permanent tax cuts to people to spend as they feel they should...not the $300 or $500 one time payoff for political support. Instead we are getting a law that is full of shovel ready waste and the possibility for corruption that could concievably be the high water mark for our economy. That is not entirely true. The stimulus package is predicated on the principle of the multiplier effect. In simple terms it grows money - or in theory anyways. And that is economics 101. quote: The answer to your question probably is simply, MOST Americans prefer capitalism and the ability to make it their way not the governent highway. . Most of us are afraid that socialism could lead to abusive economics bringing "standardization" and totalitarion demands that will force us all to comply or be penalized. We see that in this joke of a stimulus package. As was discussed in another thread, there is now going to be a "health czar" (supposed to be Daschle) who will have money now to study medical treatment and come with cost-benefit treatments that YOUR doctor will be forced to utilize or face a letter with big black ink from the government threatening penalites. Americans don't believe in failed socialist economics which strive to control a person to a "standardized" leveling of the playing field not by pulling people up who have not achieved but by taking people down who have achieved. The best is yet to come on that nine letter word that really is a four letter word...as a verb being done to all of us this day. Excuse me, I have to go now.. my President wants me to bend over and hold my ankles. The irony is that the hospital industry as we know it in the United States (like the highways) was created by federal dollars after WWII. If I remember correctly it came under the Eisenhower administration. And "Americans don't believe in failed socialist economics"? As in what the right leaning Alabama of the 1960's contrasted to the left leaning Milwaukee of the 1960's? The latter had a society that would have made much of Europe envious and the former was riddled with levels of poverty that resembled third world South America.

corysub -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 1:31:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UPSG quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US. But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? There are many Americans who love the idea of Big Government and socialism. This is particularly true among those left of center...but many of us are on certain topics. I mean REALLY extreme left of center elitist liberals who feel they know best what is good for all of us more than we know, and that government...BIG Government...is the only road for us to take towards salvation. We see that now in the Executive and Congressional Branch of the government. It's really economics 101 that the MOST stimulus would be to give permanent tax cuts to people to spend as they feel they should...not the $300 or $500 one time payoff for political support. Instead we are getting a law that is full of shovel ready waste and the possibility for corruption that could concievably be the high water mark for our economy. That is not entirely true. The stimulus package is predicated on the principle of the multiplier effect. In simple terms it grows money - or in theory anyways. And that is economics 101. I understand the theory of 1.4 to 1, or whatever...but the fact is that Government does not know how to create lasting jobs, only work! People will be busy rebuilding bridges...after months of planning, paving neglected roads, after months of planning and letting of contracts, digging ditches, fire paths in the forest, and whatever...but nothing that creates a profit as business would do if given the funds via significant tax rate reductions. Once the "shovel ready" projects are done...the work is done...and we are left with smooth roads, new bridges (hopefully to somewhere), a rail system between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and thousands of miles of windmills (with their backup generators that know one mentions). We also will be left with trillions of dollars of debt, super inflation...and a millions of unemployed. Of course the hundreds of thousands of municipal employees will not feel any of the economic depression affecting all of us working stiffs...since the Governors will be given pots of our money to keep their people employeed and not have to cut out the fat and redundancy. A fellow walked into a goverment office in Trenton and asked the woman at the reception desk..how many people work here? Her reply..an old joke I know, was 50%!! As even the liberal media reported, the CBO, who works for Pelosi, said that the country would be better off withhout this huge spending bill and social agenda driven projects. Obama is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes. He should read some of Keyens who said.."Burying bottles of dollars in the sand creates a job for someone"..it would be so much less expensive if we followed Keynes. quote: The answer to your question probably is simply, MOST Americans prefer capitalism and the ability to make it their way not the governent highway. . Most of us are afraid that socialism could lead to abusive economics bringing "standardization" and totalitarion demands that will force us all to comply or be penalized. We see that in this joke of a stimulus package. As was discussed in another thread, there is now going to be a "health czar" (supposed to be Daschle) who will have money now to study medical treatment and come with cost-benefit treatments that YOUR doctor will be forced to utilize or face a letter with big black ink from the government threatening penalites. Americans don't believe in failed socialist economics which strive to control a person to a "standardized" leveling of the playing field not by pulling people up who have not achieved but by taking people down who have achieved. The best is yet to come on that nine letter word that really is a four letter word...as a verb being done to all of us this day. Excuse me, I have to go now.. my President wants me to bend over and hold my ankles. The irony is that the hospital industry as we know it in the United States (like the highways) was created by federal dollars after WWII. If I remember correctly it came under the Eisenhower administration. I didn't know that about Eisenhower. The only thing he seems to get credit for is the tremendous highway program and wonderful "Leave it to Beaver Years" despite the fear of Nuclear War with the Soviets. I do know that where I grew up in Brooklyn, Municipal Hospitals and many hospitals affiliated with Christians or Jews served the community. There was an explosion in hospital building commensurate with the baby boom years too! And "Americans don't believe in failed socialist economics"? As in what the right leaning Alabama of the 1960's contrasted to the left leaning Milwaukee of the 1960's? The latter had a society that would have made much of Europe envious and the former was riddled with levels of poverty that resembled third world South America. No not Alabama or Millwaukee but as in the economics of the United Kingdom and Europe with their high personal taxes, taxes on petrol, VAT taxes..and on and on....There is no such thing as a free lunch as Europeans have settled down and begin to understand. With respect to Alabama, George Wallace stood in the door to block children from going to school...that was racial segregation..not economics. Actually, it was the power of black economics that got the white business community to see the light of a new day. Milwaukee...like Berkley campus, is also a politically liberal town..but their economics seems to me to be as capitalistic as Birmingham...but I could be wrong.

Prinsexx -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 2:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view? Because most who reside in the US are a lot like the 'religious freaks' during the Middle ages. Anything different than the status quo, anything off the path from what most see as 'right' and 'normal' is seen as horrid, bad, wrong, unpatriotic, and downright treacherous. No? Surely not? Really? Gosh. How surprising. I am quite quite shocked.

UPSG -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/15/2009 3:40:39 PM)
Cory, you are probably very correct about Birmingham and Milwaukee, both were industrial towns and both had a strong union history. Birmingham as I'm sure you already know, was run by Dixiecrats and had perhaps the most violent and notorious KKK chapter in the country (Klaver 13 I think they were called?). Milwaukee has a much different history with the Klan, being a city that was once mostly "ethnic" White immigrants of Polish, Italians, Irish, and Germans. The Klan came to Milwaukee in the 1930's during the Great Depression, used Masonic lodges (which have historically had strong KKK ties in the U.S.) for their meetings and came on an anti-Catholic rather than anti-Black platform. One of the great untold stories in American history is how the Catholic men and women, who's predecessors were immigrants in the 1800's, organized, infiltrated the Klan, and ran them out of Chicago and Milwaukee. It was not federal law enforcement but regular Jane's and Joe's. The men infiltrated the Klan and the women would call various people that secretly attended the meetings on the phone. "We know you have been to a Klan meeting. Publicly denounce the Klan or we will boycott your business and expose you." Italian and Irish mobs even attacked gatherings of Klanmen (in which case the Klan needed the help of the police). Eventually they were driven out, especially since Catholics in Chicago and Milwaukee worked together and passed on information to one another. This was not the case in Indiana where the Klan took on a strong hold. In the 1980's the Klan came back to Wisconsin and they remain so far as I know, in certain towns like Jainsville (spelling?). You are correct that Milwaukee is Democrat run city. Milwaukee is no Miami or Rio de Janeiro though. While it is less conservative in certain social respects than cities like Las Vegas, it is still a faily socially conservative town when it comes to certain accepted customs or mores. You won't see any g-strings on the lake front beach let me put it that way. Actually, if you judge by TV and breasts, or rather exposed breats or nipples (think Janet Jackson), I would say liberal Milwaukee and the liberal wings of the U.S. in general, tend to be a bit more conservative than Mexico and some other Latin American or European nations. So, I'm not sure we can always make "liberals" out to be universally the same always. Unions in Milwaukee have historically be racist but they were never Klan supporters like the unionized Democrats of the South, such as in Birmingham. And George Wallace was a character. I saw a film of that guy once stating something like, "The Africans and Chinese don't even know what going on in Africa or China let alone Alabama!" I response to international outcry to televised police brutality toward Civil Rights demonstrators in Alabama. [sm=lol.gif]

dutzendling -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/21/2009 11:59:41 AM)
In my opinion neither capitalism, nor socialism or communism is the best. Unrestricted capitalism as we see destroys everything because there is NO limit to reach the highest profit. So we rape the earth, pump pesticides into our own food, dump our atomic waste through depleted uranium on "our soil". Next we will inject CO2 INTO the earth to give some people more time to keep getting more profit. But finally it's just a delay to our extinction. People who shout for restrictions are naive. Capitalism buys the government, always. On the other side communism seems to be lacking competition and progress, but in comparison to capitalism it looks way friendlier to me. Unfortunately communism is prone to dictatorship and slavery. Nobody even in this community likes it real real. I like to consider almost always only the borders because generally it starts somewhere in between and leads eventually to one extreme. The underlaying problem of all systems is the monetary system. We humans are naturally greedy, so we got used to love money (with the nice %) since centuries. But in my opinion money as a non-putrescent good you can hoard easily is the real problem. In a nutshell first it leads to a shortage, then to a fee for borrowing it (interest) and finally to an exponential income of these few, who have enough of it. On the other side and this side is way larger no matter whether capitalism or communism it leads to exponential debts as a counter-weight. At the very end and through varios currency reforms/expropriations like the forthcoming US$ to Amero it leads to full slavery or a revolution. Silvio Gesells Natural Economic Order might be the key to end all the misery.

aravain -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/21/2009 12:04:54 PM)
Communism really is only effective on small-scale communities. It would not, could not work, I think, for any long period of time in a community any larger than a medium sized suburb (and that might be stretching it). Even then you have to contend with issues of corruption. I agree on your points about capitalism, though. I don't think it should be considered (by itself) a viable system if we're at all interested in a future for our race (let alone our children and childrens' children and such) or the other species that live on the Earth.

KaineD -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/21/2009 1:00:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub There are many Americans who love the idea of Big Government and socialism. This is particularly true among those left of center...but many of us are on certain topics. I mean REALLY extreme left of center elitist liberals who feel they know best what is good for all of us more than we know, and that government...BIG Government...is the only road for us to take towards salvation. I'm done taking anything you have to say seriously. How can someone be REALLY extreme left of center? That makes no sense. And you added 'elitist liberals' like a little cherry on top too. You really do just repeat what you hear on talk radio, don't you?

UPSG -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/21/2009 1:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aravain Communism really is only effective on small-scale communities. It would not, could not work, I think, for any long period of time in a community any larger than a medium sized suburb (and that might be stretching it). Even then you have to contend with issues of corruption. I agree on your points about capitalism, though. I don't think it should be considered (by itself) a viable system if we're at all interested in a future for our race (let alone our children and childrens' children and such) or the other species that live on the Earth. Yeah, but keep in mind that corruption can be found in capitalist societies as well. Al Capone's Chicago was an extremely corrupt city, and so much so that the local police (corrupt themselves from mafia influence) were incapable of taking Al Capone down, it was left to the U.S. Federal Government (read that as "big government" ergo "socialism" to some) to put Capone down, hence Eliot Ness as a Fed and not one of Chicago's finest. You probably already know this but I learned this the hard way of personal experience. I had to develop a life of reading to learn this which actually took some years. And that is, when I read one history book on a particular subject I thought I knew it all on that subject. Then I read more and more history books on that same topic or genre and I came to discover differing historical view points. Eventually it became clear to me that "history" greatly depends on who is writing it. Kind of like an autobiography, a person that wishes to be remembered by society and broad readership as a great, heroic, or macho figure will not record himself as a "cocksucker" in the literal sense. Depending on what degree you immortalize the life of Thomas Jefferson as an heroic epic, if he is a hero of yours, will follow to what degree as a writer or historian that you overlook or gloss over his ownership of his own bloodline (extended family or children) as slaves on his estate. Who writes Catholic or Christian "history" will depend on how the story or history is told; one will only write of its glories, another may be more middle ground and see glories and failures, another may choose to only emphasize what they see as failures or evidences of sinister nature. A person who is more friendly toward me will see my life, myself in a more complex weaving with things to appreciate along with those things not to. A person that is anti-UPSG will likely write of me in the most unflattering light emphasizing those things that may help provide evidence for the way they want to se me and want others to see me. There is a history of Cuba and "we" maybe certain it is corrupt and sinister, and there is a history of the U.S. and it's recent housing scandals which we may prefer to see as accidental to the entire equation. There are of course externalities, to use terminology from the field of economics, that result from various forms of capitalism or communism. When the U.S. exports its brand of capitalism with all its resulting "externalities" to other countries, how that history is written depends on who the author is behind the pen (or more accuaretly keyboard today). This is why it is important to write your own history. Juan Carlos in Gautemala has his own history, as it relates to the pursuit of profit, corruption, ethnicity, statehood, and even Christianity. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp3wYljptgE&feature=channel

UPSG -> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? (2/21/2009 1:13:31 PM)
The other thing I have learned from reading is that it operates as a paradox! The more I may read on a subject the more confident I become in that subject along with the factor of realizing how little I know and how little I will ever know! [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875