quote:
Originally posted by norma:
unique.. maybe you can enlighten me a bit, i'm a 'socialist' but maybe my interpretation of the word is wrong. To me, it means, certain things, for example clean water, hydro, roads, medical care, schools, need to be available for all where ever possible, and not only to those who can 'pay'. I also believe the business community is essential and should make a decent profit. But both businesses and governments have to work together, for the greatest good of all citizens. Are we far apart in this definition ?
Norma, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to start a firestorm but the way the others described it is about how socialism is viewed here in the US. Not so much that the govt. is going to take away personal possessions and give them to your neighbors, but more as if there is no 'private ownership'- businesses and enterprises are owned 'collectively'. It really has nothing to do at all with environmental issues, health care, or any other specific like that as much as it does that 'wealth' goes into the collective pot with everyone having the same 'access' - - theoretically.

From what we've seen, there are still 'strata' in society and people aren't equal, aren't treated equally, and the division of labor and assets is still distributed unequally. So that's why socialism isn't appealing here. Nice theory, but not so nice reality.

Ms. Hillary's views on an 'Equal World' quite frankly scare the hair off me. It's not possible and anyone who thinks it is, is deluding themselves. There will always be haves and have nots. That's the way people are. Is it nice? No, but it's reality. Human beings always, always, always compare themselves to others; even when they try not to, even when they know better, even when they don't want to.

I don't like the idea of the UN telling the US (or any other nation) how to conduct it's business.

Don't stone me, but I think Woodrow Wilson's isolationist policies had great merit. Too late now, but that's my opinion.