Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
But where I am coming from, really, is a position of wanting to have, or to discover practical, easily communicated concepts. I want the benefit of easily communicated visuals which can be 'eye-opening' to those who just don't see. I am seeking help in discovering some easily digestible depictions of the reality of 'change' which can be effectively distributed to the ground troops, evenly, and method of distribution. I'll give an example momentarily to see if there is any consensus.
People have lost touch with anything concrete to relate to. They have no concept of the 'source', the foundational concept of our national security - monetarily or militarily. That makes them insecure for they don't know what to invest their belief in. Therefore they are vulnerable to the rhetoric and hyperbole coming from the top down. See, it is just too easy for them to believe these fools in absence of any concrete appreciation of what we truly have here in America. It has not failed either. Anyway, and Republicans I am afraid, are too into their jobs, and not into the solid fibers of our foundations to be anywhere near effective. For they have basically aborted the defense of the all important basics. Heck, I listened to a congressman being questioned by a talk radio host the other day who admitted that he didn't know anything about a bill he sponsered. He kindly admitted that he didn't know the constitution very well. Well, isn't it a requrement, even if unwritten, that anyone in the House or Senate know the constitution? How dare anyone to 'claim to represent' if he or she doesn't know how and why the country works. How then can anyone do anything except follow after 'feelgood' concepts, if he or she doesn't know the Constitution? After all, if you don't know how a motor works, how would you work on it? You wouldn't know where to start. Would you work on a computer if you didn't know what was inside?
So I'm thinking, to get to the point, people don't realize what communism would mean to them if it set in. And the worst thing, by the way, that people could think, is that it couldn't happen. That said, I like the example of homeownership. Tell it this way: Let's say you own a house. Let's say government nationalizes banks. We don't want that! Why? If they do, they hold the loans for the homes. At the same time, doing the 'Dr. Feelgood' thing, they demand of taxpayers that they support those who took out loans which they could not maintain. Now, you not only make your own payments, alright, you also help others make theirs. Now, because of this you are "Oh so broke!" Now you cannot make your own payments so you have to do without something to carry on. Are you feeling the burden?
So imagine the day when you want to move. (This day is coming!) You want to move to an area where you can find a better job. But the government, by that time, has to grant permission, and they don't. Get the picture? That is what it could become like if things are nationalized. They can tell you what to do. That is what our form of government is designed to prevent.
Now, let's say you no longer can keep up the payments and they will not let you move. The government doesn't care. They tell you to apply for welfare and relief. Welcome to the Socialists idea of equity among individuals, the idea being, all of your freedoms are valuable. Don't forfeit them.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
