When the net “takers” outnumber the net “contributors” in our society ... [s]ocialism will rule. Clearly the agenda in Washington is to maximize the number of “takers” that can be created. The flaw in their design (as there always will be one) is that eventually they will eliminate all the contributors.
I’m certainly sympathetic to the thought, but based on the Webster’s Dictionary definitions, I lean a little more toward a fascist interpretation of the Obama admininstration philosophy – (a) centralized government control of private enterprise and (b) suppression of any opposition.
I’ll blame Obama for the first; the mainstream media seems to be doing its best to achieve the second.
I am having a time forming a thought on this one. Seriously. I actually studied the definition a bit.
ReplyDelete1. The Strong should conquer the weak. = No.
2. Suppress Criticism = Yes.
3. Opposes class conflict and blames capitalists for creating it and communists for exploiting it. = Yes.
4. Reject Individualism = Yes.
5. The "Third Way" by controling business and labor. = Yes.
So we're like... becoming soft Fascists? Hmm. And Socialists are more strictly "community" first, or destroy wealth? Ah whatever! Lamest comment ever. Geez.
Not a lame comment at all; I struggled with the definitions as well.
ReplyDeleteI like the phrase "soft Fascist" - it seems to fit.