Wanted to get opinions on this O'Donnell segment

[thehighwaymanq]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43161534#43161534

I really don't like O' Donnell! His segments and the way he speaks just gets under my skin.

What do you guys think about this on Socialism?

Is it really "socialist" to think government has a job running military?

[Tonewah]

I saw that segment yesterday afternoon. Like many others, I've argued for years that we're no longer a free Republic, but have instead implemented all 10 planks of the communist manifesto. So, no, we're not exactly socialist, we're closer to full-blown communist, now.

As for the military, the founders believed in a well-regulated militia that would be available to defend the country at a minute's notice. The nation would then have time to raise an army. A lot of founders considered standing armies to be a threat to freedom.

I believe it was around 1917 when it started to be said that Americans no longer had the right to defend themselves. Taking the right of Americans to own the tools necessary to defend themselves against our enemies was a tragedy. Sure, there are a lot of long-guns, handguns and other small arms out there, but even those weren't allowed to be used to defend us on 9/11. Imagine if the pilots were carrying Dirty Harry magnum gats? They'd have been cleaning up terrorist pieces instead of pieces of the WTC and American pride.

[thehighwaymanq]

As for the military, the founders believed in a well-regulated militia that would be available to defend the country at a minute's notice. The nation would then have time to raise an army. A lot of founders considered standing armies to be a threat to freedom.



So then he's saying the Founders were partly Socialist but scared to admit it?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The answer as to whether it's socialist or not, really comes down to one question - EXACTLY HOW is it being financed?

For example, IF the govt's finances are being raised through a FLAT-RATE income-tax OR a FLAT-RATE consumption-tax (given that every citizen consents to it, of course) then it WON'T be a socialist system because it abides by the principles of liberty that EVERY INDIVIDUAL should be treated EQUALLY by govt/law, have EQUAL rights to life, liberty & property, & thus, must pay EQUALLY (or "equitably" in case of consumption tax). It'd truly be a "free society/country".

So is govt-run military always socialist? NO.

[Tonewah]

So then he's saying the Founders were partly Socialist but scared to admit it?

lol. A little research on the history of socialism might help. It doesn't go back quite that far.

As for O'Donnell, I don't think even HE knows what he's saying.

Basically, many founders recognized that government was easily used to oppress, and wanted as much power in the hands of the people as possible. That would be the OPPOSITE of what we call socialism, today.

You also might want to look into what militas were. They weren't government AT ALL. They were groups of organized and armed everyday people who, if they saw a boatload of lobsterbacks (British soldiers) climbing up the rocks from the sea, joined forces to send the little buggers swimming for England.