What Leftism Does to People

[Harry Dresden]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

What Leftism does to people? It enslaves them and strangles their spirit, until it is too late and they are too powerless to do anything about it. It renders a Stepford society.

only those on the Far Left and maybe a percentage of the Moderates who buy some of the far left shit..........the more toward the Center you are, the more flexible you are with your thinking process.... IMO...........

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, read my signature. FACTS dittoheads DON"T know, and BS they do think they know as true. All documented. Very bad citizens- love being brainwashed haters...change the channel.

Amazingly enough, I made my statement AFTER having already seen your signature. And now that you've directed my attention to it yet again, I still stand by my statement.

You believe "wrong" is defined as "not believing what I do", and you would only feel better about conservatives if they would start thinking just like you. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to occur to you that people can understand what you think perfectly, and STILL think you're both wrong and a narrowminded dick.

Dittoheads fail to realize they don't get to have their own facts.

For example, if you believe Nazis were socialists because it's in their name, you just prove you'll fall for ANY right wing propaganda, even the GD NAZIS'. An obscenity, dittoheads. I don't like liars or their willing dupes. I'm right and you're WRONG. TS. The world is aghast at your idiocy.

the world is also aghast at dipshits like you who call anyone who doesn't agree with you....a Dittohead....

 

[freedombecki]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

What Leftism does to people? It enslaves them and strangles their spirit, until it is too late and they are too powerless to do anything about it. It renders a Stepford society.

That sure puts it in a nutshell.

All the Bolsheviks got out of their little revolution was 3-hour long lines at the grocery store 50 years later, of people hoping to be lucky enough to get a few oranges before everybody else snapped them up first.

We have no way of knowing what that is unless we're driving down the highway, 10-deep in traffic on all 4 sides and have to wait for hours while tow trucks remove a big-rig full of poisonous substance that jack-knifed a thousand yards ahead.

And what a day to leave the unfinished novel on the bedside last night?

 

[Foxfyre]

Klavan starts his essay with this paragraph:

The true test of a philosophy is not what it promises to make of the world but what it makes, in fact, of its adherents. Human nature is remarkably recalcitrant, but ideas do affect people over time, for good or ill, and the societies people make will ultimately bear the image of those effects and thus of the ideas. When historian Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals, detailed the often vicious and demented lives of such thinkers as Rousseau, Shelley, and Marx, he was not engaging in casual ad hominem attacks, or playing gotcha with our universal tendencies toward weakness, perversion, and moral failure. He was attempting to trace both the origins and the consequences of his subjects’ philosophical errors. Our beliefs arise from who we are and we become what we believe, a process which, according to our choices, can either resemble a spiral staircase heavenward or a flushing toilet. To him who has, more will be given, and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

I'm pretty sure he is well aware of the phenomenon as it has played out in history.

And do people have to be disruptive to get things done? The Tea Partiers were not disruptive, not doing anything illegal, and they were careful to be good citizens and good neighbors. And they were not only able to swing the House back to GOP control but did it by mostly electing people who shared their rightwing conservative values--and yes, that would be Classical Liberal values.

So maybe most of the people in the Occupy groups do not seek violence or illegal behavior, but that seems to be happening just the same.

How does a responsible citizen condone people damaging people's businesses, terrorizing neighborhoods, damaging and defacing property, defecating in the street, and generally being rude and insensitive and irresponsible? If most say they didn't want violence, they should have left the premises when the violence started. They didn't.

And what have they accomplished?
I have heard the answer they have blocked bills put forth by the left, but what else?
And have they gone against the norm, and really changed anything? Didn't they just start getting paid by corporate America just like everyone else?
Marco Rubio: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets
Mark Rubio has taken money from Goldman Sachs and the Club for Growth

Rand Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets
Rand Paul got a direct donation from Koch Industries along with donations from a hedge fund, and quite a bit of money from the coal industry.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voiced concern that the new regulations may not be worth the cost to coal companies -- even though pockets of his state have been designated black lung “hot spots” by the federal government.

In a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Paul also asserted that the number of black lung cases has been on the decline. But according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in recent years such incidences have in fact been on the rise in certain areas of coal country.

Incidences of black lung disease have generally been on the decline since a 1969 law set the maximum exposure at two milligrams. But in certain areas, particularly in western Virginia and eastern Kentucky, the number of cases has been rising since the late 1990s, according to figures from NIOSH

Rand Paul: Regulating Black Lung Could Be Too Pricey For Big Coal


Like I said, being polite and passive doesn't always get you anywhere. The OWS doesn't want people like Rand Paul for their change, people who just step in line. Change doesn't happen by electing Rubio and Paul. I can continues with more examples if you have a problem with the two I presented.

What have they accomplished? They have sent some excellent legislation to the Senate that Harry Reid won't allow out of committee to be debated, much less voted on. They have slowed down the runaway train and prevented Fearless Leader from adding hundreds of billions more dollars to the already unsustainable debt. They are saying no to legislation that NEEDS to be said no to. In other words, with their limited power that they have, they have been doing exactly what we elected them to do. If we can get enough elected in 2012, we will expect them to start reversing the damage that has been done.

But again that is a different topic.

This topic is why would those who support individual freedom and responsibility, more limited government, more responsible stewardship, and fiscal responsibility be the ones who are good citizens, considerate, courteous, and non destructive?

And the Occupy groups, which everybody admits are leftists, are mostly really bad neighbors who trash the area, are disruptive and inconsiderate of businesses who suffer wherever they are, destructive, and frightening to many people?

Both groups are angry. Both groups hope to effect change. So why the difference?

 

[Luissa]

Look up Occupy Clean up. And Like I stated, they have realized you don't change much by electing people who just step in line. Electing people like Rand Paul isn't change.

Klavan starts his essay with this paragraph:



I'm pretty sure he is well aware of the phenomenon as it has played out in history.

And do people have to be disruptive to get things done? The Tea Partiers were not disruptive, not doing anything illegal, and they were careful to be good citizens and good neighbors. And they were not only able to swing the House back to GOP control but did it by mostly electing people who shared their rightwing conservative values--and yes, that would be Classical Liberal values.

So maybe most of the people in the Occupy groups do not seek violence or illegal behavior, but that seems to be happening just the same.

How does a responsible citizen condone people damaging people's businesses, terrorizing neighborhoods, damaging and defacing property, defecating in the street, and generally being rude and insensitive and irresponsible? If most say they didn't want violence, they should have left the premises when the violence started. They didn't.

And what have they accomplished?
I have heard the answer they have blocked bills put forth by the left, but what else?
And have they gone against the norm, and really changed anything? Didn't they just start getting paid by corporate America just like everyone else?
Marco Rubio: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets
Mark Rubio has taken money from Goldman Sachs and the Club for Growth

Rand Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets
Rand Paul got a direct donation from Koch Industries along with donations from a hedge fund, and quite a bit of money from the coal industry.

Incidences of black lung disease have generally been on the decline since a 1969 law set the maximum exposure at two milligrams. But in certain areas, particularly in western Virginia and eastern Kentucky, the number of cases has been rising since the late 1990s, according to figures from NIOSH

Rand Paul: Regulating Black Lung Could Be Too Pricey For Big Coal


Like I said, being polite and passive doesn't always get you anywhere. The OWS doesn't want people like Rand Paul for their change, people who just step in line. Change doesn't happen by electing Rubio and Paul. I can continues with more examples if you have a problem with the two I presented.

What have they accomplished? They have sent some excellent legislation to the Senate that Harry Reid won't allow out of committee to be debated, much less voted on. They have slowed down the runaway train and prevented Fearless Leader from adding hundreds of billions more dollars to the already unsustainable debt. They are saying no to legislation that NEEDS to be said no to. In other words, with their limited power that they have, they have been doing exactly what we elected them to do. If we can get enough elected in 2012, we will expect them to start reversing the damage that has been done.

But again that is a different topic.

This topic is why would those who support individual freedom and responsibility, more limited government, more responsible stewardship, and fiscal responsibility be the ones who are good citizens, considerate, courteous, and non destructive?

And the Occupy groups, which everybody admits are leftists, are mostly really bad neighbors who trash the area, are disruptive and inconsiderate of businesses who suffer wherever they are, destructive, and frightening to many people?

Both groups are angry. Both groups hope to effect change. So why the difference?

 

[Luissa]

Catering to the owner Coal mines while screwing the worker isn't change.

 

[Foxfyre]

Catering to the owner Coal mines while screwing the worker isn't change.

It also isn't on topic.

 

[Luissa]

So? You wanted to know why some on the left are disobedient. There is your answer.
Electing officials doesn't always solve your problems.

 

[Luissa]

You also brought up the polite manner in which the tea party did things. I think proving all they did was elect officials who stepped right in line is on topic with where you were going is on topic, but whatever. It is your thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is more aware of an irresponsible government than are the Tea Partiers. It is the incompetence, self serving greed, and corruption of those that have been elected to public office along with a population ever more willing to be supported by others rather than assume responsibility for themselves that has brought us to the sorry state in which we find ourselves.

Yet the Tea Partiers, definitely right of center, choose to make a difference while being good citizens, considerate of others, careful not to infringe on the rights of others, etc.

Why don't the Occupy groups, identified as mostly left of center, choose that?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

I do agree with his premise that letting the state get more and more involved in our daily life decisions, having them be the source of income for people, and generally trading liberty for the security, ease, and comfort of someone else making decisions for you will lead to a more statist attitude amongst the people.

This, in the end, is ruinous to a nation as a whole.....just look to Greece for a real life example of how these type of ideals play out over time, in reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

I do agree with his premise that letting the state get more and more involved in our daily life decisions, having them be the source of income for people, and generally trading liberty for the security, ease, and comfort of someone else making decisions for you will lead to a more statist attitude amongst the people.

This, in the end, is ruinous to a nation as a whole.....just look to Greece for a real life example of how these type of ideals play out over time, in reality.

No argument with that. But let's take it one step further.

Is it possible that those who WANT to be dependent on government, who WANT others to ensure their financial security, who don't WANT to be responsible for their own choices and actions--i.e. leftists--who are those who make up the Occupy groups?

(Disclaimer: No, I am NOT saying that all who tilt left of center or who label themselves liberal are irresponsible or exercise poor citizenship. I AM saying that the Occupy groups seem to be irresponsible and exercising poor citizenship.)

And maybe it is because those who choose to depend on government for their livelihood and who WANT an authoritarian government to order their society, because they WANT to be irresponsible without consequence and without obligation, also manifest their poorly defined dissatisfaction in antisocial, destructive, and irresponsible ways that run roughshod over the rights of others?

And those who WANT to be responsible and in charge of their own destinies and who want an ever more intrusive, authoritarian, and greedy government to be rolled back to a far more constructive role, will demonstrate their disatisfactiion in a responsible and courteous manner that does not infringe on the rights of others?

It isn't difficult for me to know which of these two groups I want to share a society with.

 

[Luissa]

But wasn't it also bad investments that destroyed the economy in Greece?

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

I do agree with his premise that letting the state get more and more involved in our daily life decisions, having them be the source of income for people, and generally trading liberty for the security, ease, and comfort of someone else making decisions for you will lead to a more statist attitude amongst the people.

This, in the end, is ruinous to a nation as a whole.....just look to Greece for a real life example of how these type of ideals play out over time, in reality.

 

[Luissa]

You guys always mention socialism when siting what is wrong with Greece, but you usually forget to mention the bad investments that made their economy fall. Wouldn't that mean unchecked capitalism helped crash countries like Greece?

 

[Luissa]

Wasn't it overlending and corruption that actually tanked their economy?
One with any logic would say capitalism( poor lending/ bad investments/unchecked capitalism) tanked their economy and now they can't pay for their social programs. Before the market fell didn't they have a growing economy?

 

[WillowTree]

Nobody is more aware of an irresponsible government than are the Tea Partiers. It is the incompetence, self serving greed, and corruption of those that have been elected to public office along with a population ever more willing to be supported by others rather than assume responsibility for themselves that has brought us to the sorry state in which we find ourselves.

Yet the Tea Partiers, definitely right of center, choose to make a difference while being good citizens, considerate of others, careful not to infringe on the rights of others, etc.

Why don't the Occupy groups, identified as mostly left of center, choose that?

obama by his own admission seeks out anarchists. it's what he does.

 

[Nosmo King]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

Well. Mr. Klaven certain shows no willingness to approach this topic from an unbiased, impartial, open-minded vantage point.

We are told that the Tea Party folks are upright citizens while those who disagree that the government should be rolled back to 1789 levels are miscreants.

What Mr. Klaven fails to understand is there is no real opportunity once the richest have been allowed to consolidate wealth. He fails to understand, as do so many self described Conservatives, that Trickle Down is a scam intended to drain the wealth from the middle class and concentrate it among those who do not produce but merely own.

A question: If you are outraged that 48% of Americans are on Food assistance, that 1% of American control 48% of the wealth, that Middle Class incomes have stagnated while the earnings of the top 10% of the wealthiest have nearly quadrupled, is there any cause and effect? Have policies that promote this lop-sided income disparity cause the income disparity and the vacuum of upward mobility? And if there is such a cause and effect, why do you support policies that promote it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

I do agree with his premise that letting the state get more and more involved in our daily life decisions, having them be the source of income for people, and generally trading liberty for the security, ease, and comfort of someone else making decisions for you will lead to a more statist attitude amongst the people.

This, in the end, is ruinous to a nation as a whole.....just look to Greece for a real life example of how these type of ideals play out over time, in reality.

No argument with that. But let's take it one step further.

Is it possible that those who WANT to be dependent on government, who WANT others to ensure their financial security, who don't WANT to be responsible for their own choices and actions--i.e. leftists--who are those who make up the Occupy groups?

(Disclaimer: No, I am NOT saying that all who tilt left of center or who label themselves liberal are irresponsible or exercise poor citizenship. I AM saying that the Occupy groups seem to be irresponsible and exercising poor citizenship.)

And maybe it is because those who choose to depend on government for their livelihood and who WANT an authoritarian government to order their society, because they WANT to be irresponsible without consequence and without obligation, also manifest their poorly defined dissatisfaction in antisocial, destructive, and irresponsible ways that run roughshod over the rights of others?

And those who WANT to be responsible and in charge of their own destinies and who want an ever more intrusive, authoritarian, and greedy government to be rolled back to a far more constructive role, will demonstrate their disatisfactiion in a responsible and courteous manner that does not infringe on the rights of others?

It isn't difficult for me to know which of these two groups I want to share a society with.

Yes its very possible and in fact plausible if you've actually paid attention to the OWS crowd that they fit your description almost perfectly. I really get this vibe from those protests. I sum them up by "We envy what others have and lust after it greedily, we demand that we can have the same regardless of if we make good personal decisions or not"


To be honest compare the attitudes and behaviors of many of the OWS protests and protestors to the attitudes and behaviors of many of the TEA protests and protestors and you can see a real life example of this difference.

 

[Bfgrn]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

I do agree with his premise that letting the state get more and more involved in our daily life decisions, having them be the source of income for people, and generally trading liberty for the security, ease, and comfort of someone else making decisions for you will lead to a more statist attitude amongst the people.

This, in the end, is ruinous to a nation as a whole.....just look to Greece for a real life example of how these type of ideals play out over time, in reality.

No argument with that. But let's take it one step further.

Is it possible that those who WANT to be dependent on government, who WANT others to ensure their financial security, who don't WANT to be responsible for their own choices and actions--i.e. leftists--who are those who make up the Occupy groups?

(Disclaimer: No, I am NOT saying that all who tilt left of center or who label themselves liberal are irresponsible or exercise poor citizenship. I AM saying that the Occupy groups seem to be irresponsible and exercising poor citizenship.)

And maybe it is because those who choose to depend on government for their livelihood and who WANT an authoritarian government to order their society, because they WANT to be irresponsible without consequence and without obligation, also manifest their poorly defined dissatisfaction in antisocial, destructive, and irresponsible ways that run roughshod over the rights of others?

And those who WANT to be responsible and in charge of their own destinies and who want an ever more intrusive, authoritarian, and greedy government to be rolled back to a far more constructive role, will demonstrate their disatisfactiion in a responsible and courteous manner that does not infringe on the rights of others?

It isn't difficult for me to know which of these two groups I want to share a society with.

Such vacuous and naive propaganda. We just went through a meltdown of our economy because of UN-intrusive government.

What tea partiers want is to create an aristocracy, with CEO's as the hierarchy.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You guys always mention socialism when siting what is wrong with Greece, but you usually forget to mention the bad investments that made their economy fall. Wouldn't that mean unchecked capitalism helped crash countries like Greece?

Wasn't it overlending and corruption that actually tanked their economy?
One with any logic would say capitalism( poor lending/ bad investments/unchecked capitalism) tanked their economy and now they can't pay for their social programs. Before the market fell didn't they have a growing economy?

Actually it was their unfunded liabilities...IE their promises to their people through social programs and the lack of revenue coming into the govt to pay for these liabilities that led to their economic issues. The very same future we have here in the next 5-20 years if we don't change our attitude as a country and as a government.

IN addition their govt officials mismanaged what monies they did have and spent them on things such as short term infastructure projects that did not create lasting economic growth.

On top of that many of their rich and greedy politicians were looking out for themselves and their friends and not the people.

Combine that with a debt/gdp ratio where the debt was larger than their GDP and it became impossible for them to pay back their debts leading to all these issues.


"HOW GREECE CAME TO CRASH"

The book would relate, for example, how demagogues and political frauds shoehorned "democracy" into becoming a vehicle for the aggrandizement of "pluralist" political parties bent on exploiting every trick, twist, and turn to transform individual desperate mediocrities into fat wealthy men and women "of means" and elevate them to "leadership" positions; how they exploited the worst aspects of Greek society's tendencies to create whole classes of people directly dependent on an all-embracing apparatus of corruption and consumption that put the emphasis on lethargy, non-performance, feeble education, and non-existent meritocracy; and how they came to construct a complex edifice of cardboard props that emulated "modern government" while the true innards of the state remained desperately underfunded, ossified, dysfunctional, and wholly unreliable, leaving the people of this country brutally exposed to the vagaries of both Nature and the "international community."