The Golden Arple

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate your feedback.

Mr. Adams - In hindsight I shouldn't of named the topic of my post a letter to conservatives. In reality, it was aimed at everyone across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right and all those that fall in between.

I disagree with you on several issues. First in regards to the threat of North Korea, Iran and other 'rogue nations'. I think in reality those nations pose very little danger to us. They obviously could never invade and occupy the United States, and they would be even more foolish to use one of their missiles against us or our allies. That action would garner swift response, and the leadership of those countries know that while they would cause a relatively light damage in terms of casualties to us, they would stand to lose the leadership of their countries because of our retaliation.

Rather, I believe what Iran and North Korea are doing with their nuclear development programs is simply trying to get some influence on the world stage. These countries have been isolated, sanctioned, and they are just trying to bolster their hand. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the leadership in those countries, and I strongly believe those men should be removed from power. However, I believe it should be the people of those countries that should rise up and depose them, and not United States. Instead of forcing a corrupt, US friendly government, we should let them figure it out on their own, even if they have to go through a civil war in the process. We also need an administration that does not turn these situations in life and death threats. While serious, these situations can be delt with diplomatically. I was tired of hearing about military action against Iran and Korea.

No Obama hasn't ended the wars. I think he didn't do it because the private sector of our economy stopped him. Unfortunately, wars are a boon to business, and Halliburton, as well as other contractors are making billions of dollars of this conflict. Obama can't end these wars until the public pushes him to do it, past the resistance of the old times in the government.

You bring up a good point how we can't walk away from the disastrous results. Instead we keep sinking money and young boys into a lost cause, this really is Vietnam all over again. And yet.. why can't we walk away? Why can't we just withdraw all troops now? I heard how it will lead to a civil war in Afghanistan and Iraq (funny since it appears they're already having a civil war). I heard how it would be a military disaster to try to withdraw quickly. But honestly, now I feel like those are reasons thrown out there just to keep the war going. I'm tired of it, I'm tired of war.

I know you made other points, but I'll address them sometime in the future. Thanks again for commenting.

-Golden Arple

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate your feedback.

Mr. Adams - In hindsight I shouldn't of named the topic of my post a letter to conservatives. In reality, it was aimed at everyone across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right and all those that fall in between.

I disagree with you on several issues. First in regards to the threat of North Korea, Iran and other 'rogue nations'. I think in reality those nations pose very little danger to us. They obviously could never invade and occupy the United States, and they would be even more foolish to use one of their missiles against us or our allies. That action would garner swift response, and the leadership of those countries know that while they would cause a relatively light damage in terms of casualties to us, they would stand to lose the leadership of their countries because of our retaliation.

You can disagree, but you seem not to understand the reality of the situation. You've made several points that don't reflect the true nature of our reality. Let's discuss the threats of rogue nations first. Look at the damage done on 9-11 with just the theft of aircraft. This attack was done by a small group of men who worked over the course of a long time to position themselves in this country and also took specialized training to be able to carry out the attack. Imagine if some chemical or biological agent had been included in their carry on luggage. You claim a rogue nation is not a concern because they know they would cause relatively light damage, but only 3000 people were killed on 9-11. Surely a missile would cause at least as much damage as the terrorist attack. To be honest I've always been surprised at how ineffective that attack was from a military, body count point of view. In many ways it was a mistake to see that particular weakness in U.S. security and gain so little from it's exploitation. Still, the Palestinians celebrated by throwing candy in the streets, and surely anti American agencies worldwide were emboldened by the success of the act itself. Russia and China must have chuckled behind closed doors even if they were too smart to do so to our national face. So in fact a missile attack might seem more worthwhile than you seem to think to a nation like North Korea. Still, I believe you are correct that North Korea, Iran, and the other potential rogue nations are not a direct military threat. And you are correct that they know that. It is no stretch however, to imagine them willing to sell dangerous materials to radical guerrilla groups with the full expectations and even hopes that those groups would seek to do harm to the U.S. If they do not have the materials, they can still offer a safe transfer point for both buyers and sellers of such materials, and surely would be willing to do so for the same reasons. Further, if the U.S. then took retaliatory action for that harm, the rogue nations treaties with larger powers might compel those larger powers to react against us. An attack by the U.S. on North Korea, even for valid reasons, would leave China very little choice but to side with them against us. The same situation exists with Russia. Things could quickly spin out of control on a grand scale. Do you recall the cause of world war one? A single assassination of a minor political figure by one man representing a small radical group caused the entire world to be plunged into years of war via escalation of the initial violence. In Japan a few years ago a small fringe group successfully launched a chemical attack on a subway in a major city. 9-11 was basically the same thing on a more dramatic level with less sophisticated weapons. A larger group, better funded, bigger spectacle and more deaths, even if the actual deaths were a small percent of the potential deaths. Imagine if they had had the more sophisticated weapons. Then-President Bush stood at the World Trade Center site and told the crowd "“I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” That moment was the beginning of the march to where we are now. You can say Bush could have done things differently, but the truth is the reaction was as predictable as poking an animal. Had Bush not attacked somebody somewhere, he eventually would have been replaced by someone who would by a vote of the people. That vote would have been a landslide and he would have exited office even less popular than he was as things went. Remember how united this country was immediately after the attack? That lasted until things got tough, and the price started to be resented by some. That's how long the unity always lasts. Then politics takes over again. It doesn't matter how long it takes for things to get tough, until they do we are all one nation. In fact, many criticized Bush at the time for waiting so long to attack. Rogue nations are a serious threat to the U.S. by virtue of their ability and their willingness to enable more attacks. Attacks possibly causing larger amounts of damage and higher body counts than the attack in New York.

Rather, I believe what Iran and North Korea are doing with their nuclear development programs is simply trying to get some influence on the world stage. These countries have been isolated, sanctioned, and they are just trying to bolster their hand. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the leadership in those countries, and I strongly believe those men should be removed from power. However, I believe it should be the people of those countries that should rise up and depose them, and not United States. Instead of forcing a corrupt, US friendly government, we should let them figure it out on their own, even if they have to go through a civil war in the process. We also need an administration that does not turn these situations in life and death threats. While serious, these situations can be dealt with diplomatically. I was tired of hearing about military action against Iran and Korea.

Really? And what diplomatic methods have garnered us success in the past? Do go back as far as necessary. If I am missing a non military, non-confrontational success in changing the policies of other countries I truly do want to hear about it. North Korea is run by a despot that smuggles in anything the West refuses to sell him openly because he only needs enough for his personal use. He relented on the two journalists recently, although I honestly believe China "suggested" that be the course of action they took. But even there it was an exception, no policy change. They are pursuing nuclear weapons. They are pursuing delivery systems for those warheads. They exercise total control of their citizenry and allow almost no personal freedoms. Iran is very similar. Ahmadinejad has denied both the holocaust and the existence of gays in the population of Iran. One wonders if the law against homosexuality which carries the death penalty has any responsibility for the lack of alternative lifestyles in Iran. Maybe the gay folks are simply hiding. Or maybe they've been exterminated. You suggest a civil war as a method of political change in these countries, but I'm unclear as to how you think that would be possible in a country where the citizenry is held unarmed and close at hand. America did manage to defeat what was arguably the most powerful military to ever exist up to that point in throwing off the chains of British rule, but they had access to arms and a ruler that was an ocean away at a time when news took months to cross that ocean. We live now in a world where the military enforcers of the will of these governments can intercept a digital message, trace it, and arrive in time to arrest the sender before he receives a response. Again, simple reality. Now I do not propose America send in our troops to liberate them. However, I do not expect those oppressed peoples to rise up in the face of an enemy we seem to be unwilling to confront ourselves. Diplomatic pressure COUPLED with the real threat of military force in defense of American policy demands is to my knowledge the only effective method of foreign policy change to ever see success. Well, unless you count the times we simply bought out the enemy. A method which I feel should still be used.

No Obama hasn't ended the wars. I think he didn't do it because the private sector of our economy stopped him. Unfortunately, wars are a boon to business, and Halliburton, as well as other contractors are making billions of dollars of this conflict. Obama can't end these wars until the public pushes him to do it, past the resistance of the old times in the government.

See, this just smacks of hypocrisy to me. In THIS country, with the Democrats in power and thousands of people like you making their opinions known freely and at their will via the internet as well as more traditional ways like public demonstrations and a free press, the "Evil" companies can not be controlled and over run the will of the people. And yet the populations of Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Cuba amongst others should rise up and push their Draconian leaders and their militaries out of power with their bare hands. It also smacks of ignorance relating to the previous discussed threats. Some of the countries I see as potential threats to us are our ideological enemies specifically because they see us as innocent bystanders who have no right to be. Like it or not, we are are America. Like it or not we are the last superpower standing. We are the richest country ever to exist and we have achieved that status in the shortest time ever known. By any measure we are the best . We can't NOT influence the world. We may be innocent and uninvolved bystanders but we have to CHOOSE to be uninvolved, and making that choice enrages certain groups of people. The special interests do have to much power. Big companies do have to much influence. But the President of the United States is not unilaterally going to war over the objections of the people because Haliburton, Black Water Security, and WalMart all stand to make a buck. Our Congress is made up of 100 members each with one vote. Currently there are 40 declared Republicans, 58 declared Democrats, and two members elected as independents one of whom is Joe Lieberman, who describes himself as a Democrat and the other being Bernie Sanders who describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. That's a 60/40 Democrat majority. The House of Representatives is made up of 435 members, currently split 257 Democrats to 178 Republicans with no independents being members. That's a 79 vote majority. The President is a Democrat that won over the Republican by over a two-to-one margin. More than two votes for every one the Republican got. Someone in Corporate America must have supported him somewhere, there aren't enough oppressed blue collar workers to cause that kind of disparity in number of votes. Further, the victorious Obama won that victory in part by promising to end the war in Iraq almost immediately in order to concentrate on Afghanistan. And you're telling me you think big companies are overruling him to continue the wars, and he is helpless to stop that? Come on now!

You bring up a good point how we can't walk away from the disastrous results. Instead we keep sinking money and young boys into a lost cause, this really is Vietnam all over again. And yet.. why can't we walk away? Why can't we just withdraw all troops now? I heard how it will lead to a civil war in Afghanistan and Iraq (funny since it appears they're already having a civil war). I heard how it would be a military disaster to try to withdraw quickly. But honestly, now I feel like those are reasons thrown out there just to keep the war going. I'm tired of it, I'm tired of war.

Now this is where I start to lose my temper. Not because of statements that are a crock, but statements that are an OBVIOUS crock. The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that the greatest obstacle to overcome on our way to victory is a segment of the population that is to weak willed to accept any loss at all. Total American soldiers killed in action in Vietnam was less than 60,000. Total killed in Iraq less than 16,000. Total Wounded in action in Vietnam OVER 153,000. Total wounded in Iraq LESS than 32,000. The totals for Afghanistan are less than 2400 wounded, less than 800 killed. The numbers for Vietnam are more than DOUBLE Iraq and Afghanistan combined, so let's stop pretending that the population of America is being decimated by war casualties and women that would normally stay at home with the kids are in the factories welding battleships together. America will lose literally two and a half times as many people in traffic accidents inside her borders this year alone as she will have lost TOTAL TO DATE in Iraq by the end of this year. If you want to be antiwar for any reason you are entitled to indulge yourself (Ironically due to the sacrifice of over half a million U.S. soldiers that died in World Wars 1 and 2 among others), but at least admit that you have an unreasonably low tolerance for the human cost of war, so there was really never a time you truly supported it. Therefore your hand wringing now is hardly a surprise.

You claim we are throwing our money away. I want to point out that America maintains a standing military whether they are deployed or not. Total defense spending for 2009 will be roughly 4.2 percent of GDP. This compares to the Clinton years with a range of a low of 3 percent to a high of 4.4 percent. JFK maintained a 9 to 10 percent rate of GDP spending. We are not breaking the bank with our military spending. Further, we are discussing the U.S. military, not the Cub Scouts. We are in no way throwing "Young Boys into a lost cause" We are risking ADULTS (of both genders, thank you) whom we ask to assume an admittedly dangerous mission in support of a cause that I think it's reasonable to expect they share a belief in. And these people choose to accept the mission or not, without coercion or threats. In fact they my well be disparaged, insulted, even ostracized for fighting for America, but no one will look down on them if the elect not to. Why don't we compare the make up of the military, then and now. Vietnam, a military force made up of soldiers conscripted against their will in many cases by a draft lottery. Iraq, a force made up of volunteer soldiers who signed a contract of service clearly understanding the implication that they would then be sent to a combat zone. This isn't November 17th 2001, a week after the attacks that MIGHT lead to war. This is November 17th 2009, 8 years after the attacks. Anyone currently in the military either enlisted or re-enlisted after the attacks that sparked the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If they don't want to be there, they needn't be. If they are enlisted and don't want to be, I'd like an explanation. These people did not sign on to be the next generation that LOST a war, of that I'm certain. And unlike Vietnam, they weren't forced to go.

Your insinuation that civil wars there caused by our abrupt departure would have no effect here at home is an illusion. We have at least a segment of the population that supports us in both Iraq and Afghanistan now, and each country still represents a possible source of terrorists that could be used against us. If we walk away, the entire population of those countries become potential terrorists because we will have simply destroyed their country and then gotten "tired" and walked away. Further, each will be taken over by a government that will support state sponsored terrorism. We have to help them rebuild, we have to help them become competent to maintain their own security. Anything less and we will have created enemy terrorists for enemy governments as a gift. You should also consider that our previous timidity in Iraq is a large part of the trouble now. Both Iraq and Afghanistan look at Vietnam, look at the way Bush the elder handled the Kurdsish uprising on his watch, and listen to Obama say America will be leaving immediately he is elected and think we don't have the strenght to tough it out. Therefore, they aren't going to align themselves with us and end up like the Vietnamese and the Kurds that America abandoned before. They don't want to be left behind to be tortured and murdered when the U.S. military is recalled because the civilians eating Big Macs on their La-Z-Boys at home are tired of the war. If we walk away now we lose now and sabotage our chances in any conflict we enter for any reason at any time in the future. Again, this is where I side with the Republicans not because I agree with them, but because they are less than completely wrong. We need to ramp this up and get it done, as General McCrystal suggests, rather than tuck our tails and run.

For some reason in my reply post your cut-and-pasted comments were not italicized though I typed it that way. Paragraphs 1,2,4,6,and 8 are your statements. The rest are my replies to those statements. Please be aware of this when you are reading my reply to this latest post on this topic line and it will be more clear.

I love Obama too!

Just came across your post on President Obama and I had a bit of a different take than you did. I like what you wrote. However I was reminded of my feelings during the Clinton Presudency and then Bush's and so my comments are a reflection on the differences.

I wanted to respond to this post. Clearly you don’t understand a large group of us that you call neighbors. For background I will tell you I don’t identify as republican, have voted republican in our local elections only once and in the presidential election never. I have never voted democrat at any time. I vote third party. In answer to your question, I don’t express the same level of concern for the republican party as I do the democrats because in my opinion the republicans are closer to correct.

You claim you voted for Obama because the Mcain/Palin ticket scared you. You say you felt that if they were elected you’d be exposed to four more years of constant fear of terrorism, a threat of war, threat of Iran, threat of Korea, and you were tired of being told to be afraid. I think there’s good cause to be afraid of what these countries represent. Being tired of the threat doesn’t negate the threat. If you are not concerned by the threats posed by North Korea, Iran, other potential rogue nations, and the potential for terrorism all of them represent, you need to reconsider your opinion. If you are concerned but are just tired of dealing with it, you need to pull your head from the sand or you’ll get a swift boot to the ass one day.

Further, consider the reality of the results of your choice. Obama has not ended the war in Iraq as he claimed he would, because he never had the ability to do so. We can’t just walk away without disastrous results for both them and us, and that was always obvious. He hasn’t ended Afghanistan, and his inability to make a policy decision can only strengthen the resolve of the enemy we face. No matter what course we choose now, the Taliban will carry more influence because they were not swatted like a mosquito when they were at their weakest point. The threat of terrorism in this country has not decreased. The threat of war somewhere in the world, be it Iran, North Korea, what’s left of Russia, China, or some other state entity has not decreased. The threats remain both real and constant. Not talking about them or planning for them has done nothing to eliminate them, and has certainly diminished our ability to anticipate and counter them. Is this what you voted for?

Healthcare. You seem to assume the republicans share the idea with the democrats that healthcare in America needs to be reformed, and it’s just a question of how. I suggest to you that they do not. Hillary care failed 15 years ago, and when the republicans came to power and had the chance to change healthcare they didn’t. Doesn’t that say to you that they don’t see a need for any change? I’ve heard so many democrats claim the republicans are “Missing the opportunity to work for the change they want to see” as a means of combating the democrats. You say republican supporters should be angry at the republicans for sitting on the sidelines. They aren’t ignoring the issue. They are blocking change to a system they see no problems with. They are actively pursuing the “If it’s not broke don’t fix it” ideal. If those who share your opinion would try to understand that, maybe a compromise could be reached. I don’t happen to agree with the opinion that no change is needed, but you should try to understand that I feel the democrats are pulling us in exactly the wrong direction. Because of that, I agree most closely with the republicans. No change is better than the radical alterations the democrats are calling for. Total privatization would be much preferable to government run healthcare to me. If you can understand that, you can begin to understand my ideas about healthcare. The idea that the poor aren’t heard simply because they can’t afford to be is just plain silly. Whichever party the individual news stories benefit will gladly pick up the tab, I assure you. The ads on tv obviously support the ideas of whoever will profit by the message. I promise you that no one involved is paying for ad time out of the goodness of their hearts. The ones that claim they are, are the easiest liars to spot.

As to your idea about what if SSI had been privatized, I suggest you read this article. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp... However, the basic point is that a young worker today can expect a mere 50 cents of benefits for every dollar of taxes paid into the system. Yet even over the 1928 to1957 period, the period covering the REAL great depression, a worker would have received $5.79 in present value benefits for every dollar paid into the market. Further, this scenario probably actually overestimates the true value of social security because it assumes that benefits will not be lowered and taxes not be raised going forward. Come on now! Already there is talk of lowering benefits, and when have taxes gone any direction but up? Privatization even in the worst of times is literally ten times better for the average fellow than SSI is.

Finally, socialism itself may not be evil, but it certainly is adopted by evil people on a regular basis. The regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba for example, A country where people take desperate measures to get out. Or Russia, which in fact did not purport to be communist but was in fact the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Another country with a population desperate to get out. And of course, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party. You may know them better by their acronym, NAZI. Please don’t misunderstand, I am not calling Obama a Nazi. But the ideals of socialism, which he seems to prefer, are those which lead to government controlling its citizens, not government controlled by the citizens. I have no interest in going there. You claim that psychological studies show that people are more interested in comparing themselves to their neighbors than to earning a higher salary, but you miss the point. People are interested in doing better than their neighbors, thus they seek that higher salary. Socialism by its very nature strips a person of their ability to out do their neighbor, or to even try. This will make less people rich, but it will not make more people comfortable, in fact just the opposite. I believe the vast majority of people feel they are outdoing their neighbors by whatever values they use, it’s the Andrew Halls they dislike. The mega rich that so many democrats feel simply have no right to that much money no matter how it’s justified. You are a prime example. You aren’t happy being equal to your neighbor because their still exist those people that fly in their own jets, drive cars worth more than is sensible, and just enjoy privileges that are obscene. Who are you to tell me what is a “Sensible” amount to spend on my car? What gives you the right or the omniscience to know what privileges are “Obscene”? You live in a country where one has to go out of their way to truly have nothing, and people that are classified “Poverty stricken” have not just basic shelter and food, but cell phones, laptops, and automobiles. Go to Columbia, Nicaragua, or even Mexico and see what they consider “Obscene privileges”. You may find you are the one they are looking to take from, you evil rich American.

If you honestly think the Nazis were moved by Bakunin and Marx then you're an idiot.

NATIONALISM is that "which lead to government controlling its citizens". The NAZIs were fascists who used nationalism, racism, and corporatism.

The democrats are corporatists but they aren't nationalists.

Socialism abhors corporatism. If you don't know this then you're an idiot.

In fact you seem to just be an idiot. I have yet to see any evidence that you didn't copy and paste the majority of all that from a Glenn Beck transcript.

Why don't you actually read the writings of socialists instead of attacking straw socialism. Read Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of man under Socialism", or Einstein's On Socialism, or G.A. Cohen's "Why Not Socialism?", or some Bakunin. Then, once you learn what socialism actually is, instead of what Lew Rockwell says it is, we can talk.

Until then it's like trying to discuss the whether Chevy is better than Ford with the Amish.

Johnny,

What I notice first off about your reply is that it addresses only a small part of a single paragraph out of two fairly lengthy posts. I would be happy to hear we agree on the majority of the points I've so far addressed. But the truth is you weren't paying attention to anything but that one little part, were you? I'll explain how I know that later.

I also noticed that your argument leans heavily on insults to attempt to make it's point, without any factual basis to back up the deragatory statements. You do make the accurate-if-narrowly-interpreted statement that the Nazis employed nationalism to achieve their goals, but you ignore the socialist underpinnings of their movement, such as their demands for the "Communalization" of the large department stores so that they might be re-leased to small tradesmen, or their demand for laws that would allow "expropriation without compensation" of any land for public use as well as banning all land speculation. Perhaps you'd care to comment on the stated Nazi intention to simply execute all those they determine to be what they called "Profiteers"? You make no case for your ideas except that in your opinion I'm an idiot. I'm sure the already converted are shouting with glee. The rest of us are still waiting to be convinced.

It's an oft used tactic to demand proof of a negative (As in, you claim I need to prove I did NOT do a thing) when it's a demonstrable fact that a negative can not be proven. The opinions stated are my own original work, and I don't understand what proof that I didn't plagiarize it from Glenn Beck I need to provide. I would invite you to find proof I did copy any or all of it, and then make the accusation. Ironically, I don't listen to Beck all that much, because his advertisements for emergency food stores are just a little to "Out there" for me. Buy gold? Well sure if you have wealth to protect that justifies that kind of investment. Buy seed packs to plant an acre garden after (Implied disaster)? No, sorry. I think I'll just die and get it over with. The survivors can split up my stuff.

In fact I have read The Communist Manifesto. I've read Mein Kampf. I've read some of the writings and opinions of Lenin and Stalin. Admittedly I have read almost none of Bakinun and only a little of Chomsky because they were Anarchists and I don't think their ideas are really workable for the most part, but I'm not completely unaware of the concepts. What I referred to were those that actually implemented some form of socialism in real time. In every instance it failed. Perhaps you can point to what you consider a successful Socialist state? I'm unaware of one.

My basic problem with Socialism is that it is a lovely dream but it's not really workable in a pure form. It demotivates the individual to do more than the minimum necessary. Human nature is not divine enough on the whole to make true Socialism possible, even if Socialism were the desired end. Just look at Cuba.

Here's my real issue though, and the reason I know you weren't paying attention to everything I said and why I know you are in fact focusing solely on 3 or 4 sentences out of all I wrote. My point from the beginning is that Golden does not seem to me to be taking into account in his original post the idea that some people are educated about socialism, understand what it involves and entails, have considered it, and reject it whole and outright. I have no desire to live in a socialist society, even a pure one like what you envision. I would rather compete. In fact I would rather compete and lose than live in your society of total equality and total equalness, even if that were possible. The really ironic thing is, so would you. After all if you had your way, you and I would each be totally equal, with equal rights and access to the tools of production and resources. You would have to put up with me. You would have no right or method to deny me my time and access, no matter what. Unless of course the state stepped in on your behalf because it disagreed with what I had to say. And if I used my State granted right to the tools of production and resources to point out the flaws I saw in the system, the State would move in fairly quickly don't you think?

So again, my initial primary point was this. The idea stated in Golden's "Letter to Conservatives" seemed to me to be the idea that all Americans should come together to support the Democrat President, who happens to be Barack Obama right now. I reject Obama because I think he's made promises he could never keep, assuming he ever intended to keep them anyway. I also reject Obama because I think his ideas are bad ones, and yes, I think they are Socialist ones. I also reject and rejected McCain, and Palin, and Huckaby, and Giuliani, and all the others from the Republican side for much the same reason. I don't label their ideas Socialist, but they are bad ideas just the same. People like Golden, and much more so you, just can't seem to overcome their belief that if only they could explain Socialism to me, I'd leap at the chance to be part of the movement. You need to understand I don't want to be. In a way you were exactly right with your last attempt at insulting me. This is very much like trying to discuss whether Chevy is better than Ford with the Amish. You are arguing for one point of view and against another with someone who rejects both and has long been successfully using a perfectly viable alternative which, in my opinion, is completley superior to both.

Arguing finer points with someone like you is a waste of time. That's why I only chose to focus on the most outrageous thing that I might actually be able to influence, your complete and utter lack of knowledge about socialism.

You miss my point:
You are not at all educated about Socialism.

That's obvious from the moment you mentioned Mein Kampf and driven home by mentioning Stalin.

I don't think you would leap to socialism if only you understood it. That would inply a greater regard for you than I have.

My only concern is that you actually be able to argue competently about the subject matter. To not understand that anarchism is a socialist movement (up until Murray Rothbard) is laughable. To think that the Communist manifesto is actually a work arguing a point instead of a political pamphlet is sophomoric. Instead of actually trying to learn something about the topic you drone endless on about you just stand up and say, "I'm completely ignorant about socialism and proud of it".

Thanks for reminding me why people like you are a waste of time and energy.

Johnny,

It's a handy tactic to claim you don't make any cogent argument against my statements simply because you aren't willing to make any . Your attempt to redirect the conversation back to what "Is" and what "Is not" Socialism was also a well executed ploy. However, you still haven't bothered to offer anything other than insulting comments about my intelligence to influence me. Assuming I actually AM as stupid as you claim, one wonders why it seems to be so difficult to offer support against my arguments. Further, even if I am as ignorant as you claim about the nuances of Socialism, I have stated enough already for anyone to see I do understand the basic precept of a communally (Or State) owned ability to produce which will be shared equally among all. I have no desire to participate right there. I actually don't need to know anything more than that, but I felt it was only fair to understand the ideology better before rejecting it in case there was some modification to the ideas that wasn't immediately obvious to me from my initial exposure to the ideas. Having looked further into it, I simply have no desire for it. I have no desire to participate in any iteration or version of it, not even the completely benign, wholly unattainable version of it you seem to propose. I have no problem if you try to, although I can't help but notice the irony that your right to participate in a socialistic communal society is guaranteed in the United States by private property rights. The very rights you seek to escape with the communal living arrangement. Your continuing claims that my ignorance and idiocy are the reasons you never have and never will make any kind of calm presentation of facts to support your position is akin to a child who is told they can't have what they want and then throws a tantrum saying the refusal is stupid. Explaining myself to you hasn't worked, and you are unquestionably either unwilling or unable to make any kind of logical argument to me on behalf of your beliefs, so having done my part I'll simply retire from the point until such time as you find yourself able to make such an argument.

Johnny,

Feel free to attack ideas and beliefs and the truthfulness of something post on here, but please do attack the person. If you feel like you cannot get your point across without calling someone an idiot or questioning someone's intelligence, then please don't post.

Mr. Adams

I like your first response to Johnny, it was very well written. I think you made an important point, that even under socialism we'd still have to put up with each other. That was my original intention with this post, although I guess I didn't use the best description and metaphors for my idea. We have to learn to live together, because alternatives are far too horrific.

As for your use of Cuba as an example of a unsuccessful socialist state, I do want to point out that they've been embargoed by United States for 40 some years. It is not easy for you to prosper as a country if you can't trade with the world's #1 consumer.

Please keep commenting.

- Golden Arple

yeah...well just anytime now would be peachy

Like your site and your discussion topic on socialism. Good job!