From: "Mark" 

Yes, I'd say you're right. I'm not against each and every aspect of a
government (any government) implementing various programs for the benefit
of the masses, but the ultimate end (which granted may not come for many
many years) is essentially: "you're all equal and all have exactly the
same opportunity and we're taking care of everything for you, each of you
must show up at your assigned workplace at 8AM on Monday morning, we will
provide coffee, lunch and to-go carton with your dinner in it, each has
been weighed carefully and all get the same, we will provide you with (x)
dollars for entertainment and your assigned day to spend that is _____ so
that we don't overcrowd the theater all on one night"

"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote in
message news:41bdb995{at}w3.nls.net...
> Ok, so it's more the ideology than the current execution that you disagree
> with. I was just wondering if you had some particular take on the current
> state but that's cool enough.
>
>
> Antti Kurenniemi
> (I disagree to some extent, but damned if I can bother to get into that
> argument right now )
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:41bd298e{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It is distasteful to me, because of the basic underlying ideology that
>> personal effort toward excellence and achievement is discouraged by an
>> overwhelming involvement of the state. It's an ideology that ultimately
>> considers all should be equal in terms of monetary reward/opportunity,
>> i.e. discourage achievement and reward mediocrity.
>>
>> Capitalism encourages achievement - take away the incentive for that and
>> you end up with mediocrity all around - as is well proven world-wide.
>> Look at France, for instance, over 50% of their GDP goes to the state.
>> When you give up half of all your potential to politicians, it serves as
>> nothing but a damper on innovation and progress. This is why the EU is
>> destined to failure, that is if it is ever actually consummated at all -
>> doubtful.
>>
>>
>> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
>> news:41bd194c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Just out of curiosity, why do you think that you're already
"too far
>>> down the socialism path"? In what ways are you too far, and why is
>>> socialism such a bad thing? I'm not talking about extremes and theory,
>>> but the level that it exists in the US today.
>>>
>>> You probably already know it, but where I live we tend te bo quite proud
>>> of the "socialism" we have, and I think that in
comparison to the states
>>> we're pretty dang deep into it, yet I don't see it as a bad thing. So
>>> I'm curious about why it's such a red flag to many Americans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Antti Kurenniemi
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:41bd0efa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "My point is not that Canada is without sin on these
points (except for
>>>> sports stadiums - we generally don't do that) it's just
that you tend
>>>> to
>>>> notice someone else's "transgressions" more
easily than your own."
>>>>
>>>> That could be true, that I notice more, but I wish that it
were not so
>>>> (that I would notice Canada more), because I do think that we've
>>>> already gone too far down the socialism path and I remain
hopeful (but
>>>> not quite optimistic) that Bush can move us away from that in his
>>>> second term.
>>>>
>>>> In the short-term, nipping the government controlled
healthcare, that
>>>> so many clamor for, in the bud, is most important, but in
the larger,
>>>> longer term view, Social Security reform is just as important.
>>>>
>>>> I don't like the sports stadium collusion either
(especially and most
>>>> egregiously, when they take people's homes away from them for the
>>>> "greater good" of a new stadium). Indeed if the
fans had any
>>>> balls/brains at all, they'd say thanks, but no thanks, we're not
>>>> interested in paying huge bucks to watch steroid ingesting
fools earn
>>>> 100s of millions of dollars to hit fake leather balls over
an ad-laden
>>>> fence.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5