General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Libertarianism, for example.

Or Constitutionalism.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of
the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the
state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the
tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush,
for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism.


Many of us in the USA don't care at all for these not so little bits of
socialism.



Don't try to take away our Social Security or Medicare.


No! Do take them away! Please!

I have to chuckle when defenders of these programs claim they are popular
with Americans. If they're so damn popular why are we forced to
participate?



Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.


The only limit on any individual's freedom should be another individual's
freedom.

Once more, mea culpa mea culpa. I guess I am just not as good an
American as a guy who fialed to show up when it was required of him.
I thought you got 20 years at hard labor forthat sort of stuff.


If he hadn't shown up for duty you can be sure he'd have paid the penalty.


Obviously not, because Bush wsa clearly in an unauthorized status, and he was
not held accountable. It was the '70's, the military was very unpopular, and
Bush's daddy was around to make sure no actions were taken. And Bush was in
the National Guard, which is -not- the same as the Air Force.



One more point. Kerry went to war.


Any idea why he declined to serve his full tour?


That's a false statement. Kerry did serve his full tour. Bush was just
allowed to walk on his obligations.




Bush hid in Texas.


Bush's location was known. He could have been sent to Vietnam at any time.

Not with his father covering his ass.


How do you feel about Bill Clinton?

Bill Clinton is not running for office.

This time around a decorated Viet Nam veteran is running against a putz who
didn't even go to OCS.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Obviously not, because Bush wsa clearly in an unauthorized status,
and he was not held accountable.


If Bush had not done his duty he'd have paid a price, that much is certain.
Since he paid no penalty it's obvious he did his duty.



It was the '70's, the military was very unpopular, and Bush's daddy
was around to make sure no actions were taken.


Kinda like Gore and his daddy.



And Bush was in the National Guard, which is -not- the same as the
Air Force.


Nope. It's not the same as the Army or Navy either. But they're all
military service.



That's a false statement. Kerry did serve his full tour.


Negative. Kerry served a bit more than four months of a one year tour.



Not with his father covering his ass.


His father wouldn't even if he could.



Bill Clinton is not running for office.


It was the Kerry campaign that chose to make Vietnam an issue. That being
the case, Bill Clinton's behavior during the Vietnam war and Kerry's
statements during the 1992 campaign regarding Clinton's status are fair
game.



This time around a decorated Viet Nam veteran is running against a putz
who
didn't even go to OCS.


A decorated veteran who sought three Purple Hearts under questionable
circumstances and used them to get out of Vietnam well short of a full tour.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Once more, mea culpa mea culpa. I guess I am just not as good an
American as a guy who fialed to show up when it was required of him.

Except, of course, he did, by the records, despite the frantic efforts
of some to pretend otherwise.

Meanwhile, he's been in a job for the last three years which has a
*very* high mortality rate, after serving in a plane in the National
Guard which had a mortality rate *in training* about equal to combat
flying.

Since you're claiming that this guy isn't brave, and that he didn't do
his duty, you're nowhere near as good an American as you thought.

Sorry, but you brought it up.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Chad Irby
Date: 6/4/04 11:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Since you're claiming that this guy isn't brave, and that he didn't do
his duty, you're nowhere near as good an American as you thought.

Sorry, but you brought it up.

--

Yeah. Thats what I said.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Chad Irby
Date: 6/4/04 11:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Since you're claiming that this guy isn't brave, and that he didn't do
his duty, you're nowhere near as good an American as you thought.

Sorry, but you brought it up.

Yeah. Thats what I said.

....except that your previous attempts at sarcasm failed, because you
were wrong about the particulars.

You pretty much just threw away your entire WWII record, all in a failed
try at making someone else with a not-as-good record look bad.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Since you're claiming that this guy isn't brave, and that he didn't do
his duty, you're nowhere near as good an American as you thought.

Sorry, but you brought it up.

--

Yeah. Thats what I said.

These guys know they have no leg to stand on, Art. So they attack you.

Bush did not satisfactorily complete his term of service.

You did, and thanks again.


Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush did not satisfactorily complete his term of service.


Prove it.