Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Czar was the Republican and the people were the Democrats. Was the Czar bad, yes, but was the Communist Party worse?
What we have is a bad situation here in the US in 2008. I agree, but is the medicine more dangerous than the illness? This IMO is the real issue before us. As long as Nancy and Harry are in office, I know the pill is poison.
A vote for Obama is not necessarily bad, but a vote for Obama with Harry and Nancy.... death will be a genuine possibility for our government.
The Czar was the Republican and the people were the Democrats. Was the Czar bad, yes, but was the Communist Party worse?
What we have is a bad situation here in the US in 2008. I agree, but is the medicine more dangerous than the illness? This IMO is the real issue before us.
As long as Nancy and Harry are in office, I know the pill is poison.
Even under the best laid plans, it's going to be rough. We have a decision to make. We either allow the people to take control of their own lives or we hand it all over to the government to save us as long as it can afford to.
Since you're going back to the early 20th century to make a very thin point, it seems that you've placed your political well-being in the hands of the party that brought America the Great Depression. God Bless You.
I agree that the Great Depression was the result of wild and crazy spending by 20 somethings coming out of a terrible world war, but again, did history repeat itself? Was the New Deal a terrible poison that will destroy the US some 70 years after it used socialism to cure the illness?
I agree that the Great Depression was the result of wild and crazy spending by 20 somethings coming out of a terrible world war, but again, did history repeat itself? Was the New Deal a terrible poison that will destroy the US some 70 years after it used socialism to cure the illness?
The New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States. The New Deal did not result in the appropriation by the Federal government of all or even most of the means of economic production across the nation. So, by definition, the New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States.
The New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States. The New Deal did not result in the appropriation by the Federal government of all or even most of the means of economic production across the nation. So, by definition, the New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States.
Err... I beg your pardon.... What do you think "Social Security" is if not socialism? Err... I beg your pardon.... What do you think the TVA is if not socialism? Err... I beg your pardon.... What do you think the REA (Rural Electrification Act). Shall I go on?
The New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States. The New Deal did not result in the appropriation by the Federal government of all or even most of the means of economic production across the nation. So, by definition, the New Deal did not implement "socialism" in the United States.
The sand is deep and the neck is long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
dont let the stars get in your eyes
