By Bob Hockett
Give the Republicans credit, they’ve got me thinking. I’m thinking there’s too much socialism in this country. Socialized army, socialized air force, socialized NASA. Socialized navy, marines, coast guard. Socialized CIA. Socialized FBI, socialized Drug Enforcement Agency. Socialized Homeland Security. Socialized predator drones. Socialized cops. Socialized courts. Socialized schools. Socialized air traffic control. Socialized money. Heck, even the highways, the roads, bridges, sewage and water treatment plants, you name it – they’re socialized too. And don’t kid yourself that the gas and electric companies aren’t socialist. These regulated monopolies are so heavily regulated, they might as well be called state-owned. And what about that state? It's socialized too, the socialized entity par excellence. What were the Founders thinking, founding a state as they did, hence founding ... socialism? L'etat c'est moi: that's monarchy. L'etat c'est nous: that's socialism.
How did all of this socialism creep up on us unnoticed? How did we miss it? And what next – will we be wearing socks with our sandals, working 35 hour weeks, taking month-long vacations, getting effective and inexpensive health care, child care, retirement security, and discussing art or unanswerable philosophic questions at sidewalk cafes like the socialists of Europe? Say it isn't so.
I’ve got a suggestion to make: let’s Stop Socialism Right Now. That's right: SSRN. Got a problem with terrorists? Round up your like-minded friends, pass around a collection plate, and hire a firm to go take ‘em out. Worried about drugs or drug dealers? Same story – find a company to pay to go out and stop people from smoking, inhaling, or otherwise imbibing or doing things you think that they shouldn’t do or imbibe. Want to take down a monstrous dictator somewhere, or stand up against fascist or communist aggression? Very well then, pass the plate. What to put into the plate? Well, not dollars; those are printed by the government and therefore are socialized currency. Better then to put in the plate what the people you’re hiring want – food, clothing, watches, jewelry, personal services …let's barter!
What about roads, bridges, power grids, courts, crime? Same thing: let companies compete for our traffic or other business. Let firms lay roads, tracks, bridges, grids, where ever they can buy - or rather, barter for - land. Then let them compete for our traffic – even if they all run side by side. That might make for an awful lot of pavement and a whole lotta wires all over the place, but prices will be lower. And we’ll be more free! How about courts, legislatures, cops and so forth? Easy: let people buy justice. Somebody robs you, go hire a private cop to go get ‘em. Somebody injures you? Hire a firm to extract compensation - in kind. When private courts and cops have to compete for our business, they’ll be more efficient, less expensive. And we’ll be more free.
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. Some people look at the world and say 'why?' I look at what could be and say 'why not?' What I'm suggesting here, it's not so radical. It’s even been done before. It’s how armies, police, courts and so forth worked in late Greece prior to the Macedonian takeover, and in Rome shortly before Caesar. With such classical antecedents, who could object?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
A bit more work and you have at least the lyrics to a Randy Newman song here. When it's finished, we'll sell it to the highest bidder, one of our next presidential candidates perhaps.
But wouldn't Obama be more honest, and perhaps more successful, if he admitted that a European-style social democracy--adopted to North American conditions--was at least part of the model for his policies? Wouldn't this, at least, force the Republicans to articulate an alternate vision? It used to be said that the Democrats wanted the United States to be like Sweden and the Republicans wanted it to be like Texas: is it so clear the Dems would lose on that choice?
If the point of the post is that it's just as silly to think that U.S. conservatives believe in no government at all as it is to think that U.S. liberals are socialists -- and unfortunate that folks on both side make those sorts of arguments -- then I agree.
I can't speak for Bob's subjective intentions but I read the post differently from Orin. For many years, conservatives would from time to time deride liberals' proposals for expanding public support for health insurance as "socialized medicine," but for the most part mainstream conservatives did not more generally call any and every proposed expanded government responsibility "socialism." At some point in the last few years, that changed, so that what was formerly a fringe view on the right has become mainstream. Bob was pointing out--with some hit-you-over-the-head irony--that this meme is absurd, given that the mainstream conservatives now mouthing it can't possibly believe it. I see no parallel in the other direction: The view that the right are all anarchists is not widely heard on the left; indeed, I don't think it's heard at all.
As for Michael's comment, it poses an interesting thought experiment but I think the premise is false. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has managed to convince a great many people on both the right and the left that if he had his druthers he would pursue strongly left/liberal policies. There was never any good basis for believing this about Clinton, whereas one could have possibly thought this about Obama based on his very liberal (albeit brief) record as a Senator. However, once he became President and put Summers and Geithner in charge of the economy, and placed Hillary Clinton in the one position where her foreign policy hawkishness would matter, it should have been clear that Obama's core instincts were centrist at most. Conservatives cite the stimulus, financial reform, and health reform as counter-examples, but the first 2 were driven by events (and might well have happened in a Republican Administration, given the crisis), whereas health care reform has been on the top of Democrats' to-do list for so long that Obama had to tackle it while he had 60 votes in the Senate or lose all credibility in his own party. Even then, he did so in a way that sorely disappointed the left. So while I would be keenly interested to see a choice between Sweden and Texas, absent the Presidential nomination of Bernie Sanders, I don't see it happening.
Michael Dorf writes:
"I see no parallel in the other direction: The view that the right are all anarchists is not widely heard on the left; indeed, I don't think it's heard at all."
I don't hear claims that the conservatives are all anarchists. But I do often hear claims from liberal commentators that ideas that are actually quite radical are secretly but widely held among conservatives -- such as claims that "conservatives are trying to undo the New Deal,""conservatives don't believe in government," etc. The common dynamic, I think, is the false suggestion that the other side is really extreme.
Hi Orin,
I don't doubt that some of what you describe is occurring. But I think American politics goes through periods when the parties are more or less responsive to their most committed activists. We currently seem to be in a period when the Republicans are substantially more attuned to the views of the far right than the Democrats are attuned to the far left.
I'm just going to read this as some Juvenalian piece of satirical writing and keep the integrity of my institution in tact.
Peace-loving Socialists, pls understand. This satire is UNNECESSARY provocation. It stabs hearts. Pls refudiate.
Shit, I just realized that air is socialized and for free. We should do something about that.
My only reservation that "centrist" is very hard to define. I think Obama is indeed a centrist in the politics of (say) New York, New Jersey, and perhaps Pennsylvania. But in large parts of the country he is strikingly left of center: and perhaps more so all the time.
Nice. As a native Swede I have quite a few things I disagree with re: the "effective and cheap" health care. Why don't you join me when I go back in August and I will show you just how good it is.
By the way, you might want to bring extra insurance covering transportation to an American hospital in case you get sick.
I wasn't being satirical.
In the Washington Times yesterday, staff writer Jeffrey T. Kuhner penned this:
"President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path."
This is beyond laughable. It's just stupid. But, as MD says, this kind of fringe rhetoric is now showing up in mainstream right wing publications.
It is perfectly acceptable to lampoon this sort of idiocy by using satire, as Bob does.
The health care bill is not socialized medicine. Far from it. That would be closer to a single-payer system, which we do not have. Financial and regulatory reform is not socialized capitalism. It is simply a return to the regulated capitalism that is a precondition for depression-free economic prosperity. Any suggestion that these bills are socialist (or near socialist) is crazy.
"If voting really did anything, do you think they'd let us do it?"
-Bill Hicks
The true reflection of freedom in an authentic, democratic society rests in delegation of powers strictly to the local level. Bartering represents an essential ingredient in this platter of freedom, so in this regard, Leiter and I see eye-to-eye.
I expected to read about how the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) was a socialist plot, and I'm terribly disappointed to have that hope dashed.
I've been away, with limited access to that socialized communications network now known as 'the internet,' for the past week. It's lovely to find all these comments upon returning. Many thanks to all.
I'm of course sympathetic to Orin Kerr's concern with even-handedness. But I also find Mike's and Sam's observations so empirically spot on as to leave me confident that this post presents no affront to that desideratum.
I recall thinking, back in the day, that the most exercised Dems, along with more Europeans, gave Reagan both too much and too little credit when they absurdly labeled him a 'fascist.' (As if there had ever been anything so systematic as that in the man's head.) Today, by contrast, nearly all of the absurdity is found among Republicans and the Tea Party ignoramuses whom they are shamefully bamboozling.
Mike's example is the very one I often use: when was the last time you heard any Democratic official refer to the Republicans as anarchists? And as for the charge cited by Orin, concerning Republican intentions to roll back the New Deal, I've not heard or read any Democratic leader or widely read organ level any such claim -- though heaven knows Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Republican Federal Appellate Judge Janice Rogers Brown afford ammunition aplenty to anyone prone to do so.
The example that Sam cites, for its part, surely must shock the conscience of Orin and anyone else concerned with the integrity of our republic and press. I concur with Sam's judgment of Kuhner's contemptible piece, and would merely add that it is not only laughable and stupid, but also potentially dangerous. How long would a democratic republic endure were journalists outside of the tabloids routinely to write such rubbish with such abandon? Will it not ultimately afford gun-toting yayhoos high and low with the means of convincing themselves that their racism- and selfishness-prompted future crimes are somehow august and noble?
On Michael L's thoughtful suggestions, I am again with Mike. I'd love an honest debate on the comparative merits of European social democracy on the one hand, and the curious amalgam of plutocracy and 'Deliverance' style ignoracracy we now live with on the other. But it would not be honest for President Obama to cast himself as an advocate of the former. At best and at worst he represents an attempt to return to something much more like Gerald Ford style Republicanism. Not much to applaud there, but much less to vilify.
I've been away, with limited access to that socialized communications network now known as 'the internet,' for the past week. It's lovely to find all these comments upon returning. Many thanks to all.
I'm of course sympathetic to Orin Kerr's concern with even-handedness. But I also find Mike's and Sam's observations so empirically spot on as to leave me confident that this post presents no affront to that desideratum.
I recall thinking, back in the day, that the most exercised Dems, along with more Europeans, gave Reagan both too much and too little credit when they absurdly labeled him a 'fascist.' (As if there had ever been anything so systematic as that in the man's head.) Today, by contrast, nearly all of the absurdity is found among Republicans and the Tea Party ignoramuses whom they are shamefully bamboozling.
Mike's example is the very one I often use: when was the last time you heard any Democratic official refer to the Republicans as anarchists? And as for the charge cited by Orin, concerning Republican intentions to roll back the New Deal, I've not heard or read any Democratic leader or widely read organ level any such claim -- though heaven knows Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Republican Federal Appellate Judge Janice Rogers Brown afford ammunition aplenty to anyone prone to do so.
The example that Sam cites, for its part, surely must shock the conscience of Orin and anyone else concerned with the integrity of our republic and press. I concur with Sam's judgment of Kuhner's contemptible piece, and would merely add that it is not only laughable and stupid, but also potentially dangerous. How long would a democratic republic endure were journalists outside of the tabloids routinely to write such rubbish with such abandon? Will it not ultimately afford gun-toting yayhoos high and low with the means of convincing themselves that their racism- and selfishness-prompted future crimes are somehow august and noble?
On Michael L's thoughtful suggestions, I am again with Mike. I'd love an honest debate on the comparative merits of European social democracy on the one hand, and the curious amalgam of plutocracy and 'Deliverance' style ignoracracy we now live with on the other. But it would not be honest for President Obama to cast himself as an advocate of the former. At best and at worst he represents an attempt to return to something much more like Gerald Ford style Republicanism. Not much to applaud there, but much less to vilify.
I've been away, with limited access to that socialized communications network now known as 'the internet,' for the past week. It's lovely to find all these comments upon returning. Many thanks to all.
I'm of course sympathetic to Orin Kerr's concern with even-handedness. But I also find Mike's and Sam's observations so empirically spot on as to leave me confident that this post presents no affront to that desideratum.
I recall thinking, back in the day, that the most exercised Dems, along with more Europeans, gave Reagan both too much and too little credit when they absurdly labeled him a 'fascist.' (As if there had ever been anything so systematic as that in the man's head.) Today, by contrast, nearly all of the absurdity is found among Republicans and the Tea Party ignoramuses whom they are shamefully bamboozling.
Mike's example is the very one I often use: when was the last time you heard any Democratic official refer to the Republicans as anarchists? And as for the charge cited by Orin, concerning Republican intentions to roll back the New Deal, I've not heard or read any Democratic leader or widely read organ level any such claim -- though heaven knows Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Republican Federal Appellate Judge Janice Rogers Brown afford ammunition aplenty to anyone prone to do so.
The example that Sam cites, for its part, surely must shock the conscience of Orin and anyone else concerned with the integrity of our republic and press. I concur with Sam's judgment of Kuhner's contemptible piece, and would merely add that it is not only laughable and stupid, but also potentially dangerous. How long would a democratic republic endure were journalists outside of the tabloids routinely to write such rubbish with such abandon? Will it not ultimately afford gun-toting yayhoos high and low with the means of convincing themselves that their racism- and selfishness-prompted future crimes are somehow august and noble?
On Michael L's thoughtful suggestions, I am again with Mike. I'd love an honest debate on the comparative merits of European social democracy on the one hand, and the curious amalgam of plutocracy and 'Deliverance' style ignoracracy we now live with on the other. But it would not be honest for President Obama to cast himself as an advocate of the former. At best and at worst he represents an attempt to return to something much more like Gerald Ford style Republicanism. Not much to applaud there, but much less to vilify.
Bob writes: "And as for the charge cited by Orin, concerning Republican intentions to roll back the New Deal, I've not heard or read any Democratic leader or widely read organ level any such claim . . ."
Some very quick googling led to such claims by Hillary Clinton (then a Senator, now Secretary of State); Paul Krugman describing the thesis of his popular book about conservatives; and the New York Times editorial page:
1) Senator Hillary Clinton claimed in 2003 that the Bush Administration wants to "undo the Deal" and dismantle "the "central pillars of progress in our country during the 20th century."
http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2003_12/day_06.html
2) Paul Krugman described the basic thesis of his book, The Conscience of a Liberal, about the conservatives, as being that "the core goal of . . . movement conservatism is . . . to roll back the New Deal and the Great Society."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/the-thesis-of-coal/
3) The New York Times editorial page, in an editorial, "What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal," argued that influential "states rights conservatives" want to undo the New Deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html
I'm sure I could find a lot more if I gave it more than a minute or two, but that's at least a start to give you an idea of what is being said.
Thanks to Orin for the examples he cites just above. I do note, however, that they do not reference charges that today's Republican party or leaders are trying to roll back the New Deal, let alone that they are anarchists. Two of them refer to 'movement conservatives' rather than the Republican party or its leadership. The other example, from seven years ago, refers to the Bush Administration, presumably citing its intentions at that time to 'privatize' Social Security and either eliminate or substantially curtail progressive and estate taxation. A counterpart today on the right, it seems to me, would be for conservatives and some Republicans to charge 'movement progressives' with wanting to 'undo the Reagan revolution,' and perhaps the Obama administration with wanting to restore some of the recently lost progressivity to the tax code. That strikes me as a far cry from the silly -- and in my view overly flattering -- charge that Obama is a 'socialist.'
For what it is worth, my bet is that what's really afoot in the 'socialist' canard, just as in the 'birther' canard, is that Obama is 'radically other' in the eyes of those rightwingers now slapping silly labels on him. He represents a significant ethnic and familial-background sea change in American politics. And since most 'other'-sounding categories -- e.g., 'he's black,' 'he's got some muslim relatives,' 'his middle name is "Barak"' -- sound transparently in nowadays discrediting bigotry, the safest way for rightwingers to suggest and propagate a vague perception of alienness is to associate him Pavlovianly with an alien (to Americans, anyway) *political* category. The safest such is that of 'socialism,' the meaning of which term is indeed *quite* alien to most Americans. But just for good measure, the most lunatic of the loons call him 'communist,' 'Stalinist,' and 'Nazi' as well. If one requires evidence of postmodernity in American politics, here it is.
Bob,
Thanks for your response. It's interesting, your sense of how American conservatives think is quite different from my experience. I'm curious, have you talked to your Republican/conservative friends about these issues, and if so, what did they say?
Thanks much, Orin,
The conservative friends with whom I've spoken about this seem thus far to be agreed (a) that it's silly to call Obama and the Dems 'socialists,' while also disagreeing with me at least somewhat as to (b) my belief that Obama is closer to Gerald Ford than to Eugene Debs, and (c) my belief that there's little paranoia among Dems right now of the sort heard more frequently these days from Republicans. I suppose normative orientations really do color perceptions here. A fine entree for a nice empirical study!
All best and thanks again,
Bob
What is socialism? Is it redistribution of wealth? I'm pretty sure it is, can you guys at the least agree on that? Maybe you should look at this video, and tell me whether you think Obama advocates a redistribution of wealth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck. Or how about this?: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/17/video-college-acquaintance-of-obama-says-he-was-pure-marxist-socialist/. Is that enough to make your heads spin?
If that is not enough, let's take a look at what he has done as President, shall we. Well, the fact of the matter is, to his advantage, and he loves playing this to his advantage, the Republican Party during the Bush jr years had become invaded by Rhinos, or "Progressive-Republicans", and they were spending at horrible, totally non-conservative levels. They did the right thing with the Bush tax cuts, but they did the wrong thing with the insistence of spending with no end in sight. But, then came Mr. Obama calling for change. People voted for him because they authentically wanted change, but not the type of change Mr. Obama was secretly offering. Once Obama got into Office, he started off with a spending spree. He has managed to get the national debt from about $10 trillion or so from what he inherited to about $13 trillion today, in less than two years! Growing the size of government is asynchronous with socialism, spending and taxing is a form of socialism.
The fact of the matter is America would never welcome socialism with open-arms and smiles, or anything resembling it, so it has to be fed it in tiny teaspoons, and the more America eats of this "great" socialism food, the more it will get comfortable with it. One day, America will have become so socialist, it will be blatantly obvious, we are already headed there right now, open your eyes. I repeat, it wasn't just the Democrats, but Rhino Republicans, who stepped away from there economically conservative roots, and now true socialists like Obama can point fingers at them saying "well, they did it". Sure they did it, but does it make it right? Absolutely not!
Can America keep spending with no end in sight? Does America have a magic piggy bank that can make it free money all the time? No, that piggy bank is actually a debtor, right now they come by the name of China, among others, and when China stops helping, maybe we'll find more debts to acquire through other sources, but, honestly, how much longer do you guys truly believe till it gets to the point that our debtors will ask for their money back? How will it be paid back? Will it be paid back? If not, then it would most likely trigger WW3, and if it is to be paid back, then the only solution is more taxes, and we aren't even at that point, and Obama is already calling for higher taxes on the small business guy. How high must taxes rise to meet Obamas ambitious socialist dreams from his mother? Or was it his father? Or was it both?
continued...
As the teleprompter, or I mean, President keeps on feeding us more kool-aide/lies, we watch his beautiful policies making way to so much prosperity. Yes, the great bail-outs thanks to Bush' progressive-Republican mind, and then Obama's marxist mind, nearly $2 trillion in bailouts, and what great things this free money has done, and gotten accomplished, hasn't it? Oh, that recovery summer tour was ingenious, one heck of a recovery here, without a doubt, apparently the recession ended about a year ago, apparently, but, if you look at the stock market, the unemployment rate, the housing market, gold prices, and all sorts of wonderful information, you wouldn't be able to tell. Yeah, the liar Obama will have you believe this was just big good ol' recovery. Such a good recovery, that they are now calling for (and have been for months now) another... yeah, you guessed it... bailout? Yup. Another bailout, yeah that should be the cure. Wait, the cure for what again? I thought we were in a great good old recovery, why would anybody need more bailouts, or oops, I meant to use the new term, stimulus. Bailout, handout, stimulus, money to enrich the unions, whatever name you want to call it, it is more free money. Great idea, let's bankrupt the country.
There was an old quote from Margaret Thatcher "there is one problem with socialism. Eventually the people run out of money", and where do you get your revenues from then? If you look all over the books of history, you will find that communism has failed horribly, resulting in mass murder of its own people, every single time (basically). Socialism? Most the time it has failed as well, and much of the time it morphs into communism. European socialism? Lest we forget that some of these countries used to communist at one point of time to begin with. At this moment, they are semi-socialist, and not hardcore, they are a few years ahead of us in those regards. The only reason why they are not nightmarish/traditional examples of socialism is because of America's influence, if America wasn't the super-power there would be no motivation in Europe, or anywhere for that matter to be more about liberties, freedom, and free markets. America is one of a kind, and its success is based on its reliance on the free market system, if that wasn’t true, then can someone please try to explain it? If America collapsed, that would be the day the whole world changed, and not just because of the loss of the great nation, but, because the loss of its influence on the world. Because of America’s success, it made much of the world in envy, and jealousy, so everybody wanted to be like, or similar to America. Once America, or the America that we know today, is gone, do you honestly think things will be the same in Europe? Socialism there will drift into communism, and China, and its great communist model will be the great guider of all, guiding the world into the great utopia that is called communism, oh how wonderful, don't you wish everybody in the world made an amazing $3,000 a year? That would make everything so fare, now wouldn't it? Yeah, I'm sure that will be accompanied with a global government and a mass murder of, hmmm, I'll take a guess and say a couple billion people. You want to call me a nut for making that claim? How about you look at the actual history of Russia in the last century, under Stalin's rule 10's of millions of people were killed by the Russian government, and in China, well there once was a great visionary, named Moa Zedong, and he managed to kill nearly 100 million of his people. So, if you think that socialism and communism are great ideas, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that Comrade Obama is on your side.
(continued...)
One last thing, people love saying things like “it’s not Obama and the Democrats that are doing class warfare, it’s the Republicans”, and they show numbers and data that points to the fact that 2% of the population now holds 25% (or some huge figure) of the wealth. This number has increased since 1980. But, nobody looks at the fact that in conjunction with this change of where the wealth is, the amount of people that are now living off government handouts has risen dramatically in the same time span. Do you not realize the two are linked? People living on handouts are not motivated to try hard, to go that extra mile, no; the government will always be there to give them more free money. The more people that have this mentality, the more open-love for socialism there will be, but, it will only lead down a horrible path. Instead of expecting the government to keep giving you more checks, how about trying to make a real effort of making an honest living. What? You can’t find a job? Why not try and be creative? Why not try to make a company of your own? Be your own boss. No, of course not, that would be too risky? Failure is so scary. But, the thing is all people that have become successful will tell you that you need to take risks to become successful, but too many of these people have now become too pessimistic, too quick to not believe in themselves, lacking of confidence, and too reliant on the government to ever try such a scary idea. A risk? No, too risky, the government, they will always be good ol’ pals, with those good ol’ handouts.
That is my two cents, don't like it, well, maybe you should re-educate yourself with actual facts! Check everything I spoke about out, and see for yourself, see if I'm lying, or telling untruths, I think you will be surprised.
After the election, it will be time to impeach this Socialist teleprompter.
Unfortunately this was supposed to be the first part of what I wanted to say, but, somehow it didn't get sent properly, so now I resend it, even though it is now out of order:
You liberals are all the same. I must say, I really find it so outrageous, and it makes me somewhat mad, that after all these years of human history, people still don't understand the implications of certain actions. That is not even the end of it with you guys, you guys think you're more "intellectually superior" or something, like you see something that I can't see, or am blind to see. Blinded by my lack of intelligence? Is that what you assume? Blinded from my own (in my case) understanding of psychology and how it can be used as a tool to understand people’s motivations and where they are truly headed. What about blinded from actual understanding of ramifications of what is actually occurring? Are economic numbers, reports, and charts now assumed to be complete fabrications? Are results of this new experiment that Obama and his Democrats are conducting to be looked at as something to be ignored? Should Obama be allowed to keep blaming Bush nearly 2 years into his Presidency? Does anyone (with an actual capability to remember things (it’s called a memory)) actually listen to Obama when he talks? Who are the ones that are so blind that they don't see the lies? He lies all the time about all sorts of things, he flip flops like a schizophrenic on all sorts of issues and ideas look at footage during his campaign, and then during the campaign for health care, and throughout that whole debate he switched positions several times. Does lying make him a socialist? He claims he is not, but, many of his policies are socialism-lite-esque. Think of it clearly with a logical thought on it please? Please, for our future, for your future, for your children’s future, I'm sure you guys are not actual supporters of Socialism, but, you guys want to just throw the idea of Obama being a socialist out the window like some conspiracy theory, but, before you do, think about it logically, please.
The Tea Party is a revolution that has been brewing for a very long time. It was really a sleeping giant for a while there, but, now the conservative minds and hearts of America have risen, and they are now standing up for what makes America America.
How can you honestly believe that this president is not a socialist, or a Marxist, or even a closet communist? Many people out there are oblivious to the fact that these 3 isms are related, but if you actually did the research you'll find that Marxism is the root of both communism and socialism, and socialism is basically communist-lite.
Of course, there are many decisions you’re going to have to make when you’re planning a trip or even if you’re an experienced traveler.
http://www.okanaganautomation.com |
http://www.nhbensautobody.com |
http://www.finanauto.com |
http://www.autoenergy-gr.com |
http://www.ppautocenter.com |
I’m happy to find so many useful info here in the post, we need work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing.
http://www.ifoundaschool.com |
thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل
صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق
It is really a nice and useful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
http://www.freestonehomes.com |
Post a Comment