Whats so wrong with socialism

**Versus** · 28 May 08,, 23:51

Indians had bows,arrows,spears and an occasional rifle while US had rifles, pistols,Hotchkiss guns and cannons, so yes I agree, that shooting at almost unarmed opponent requires a less ammo and weapons thus reducing the over all destruction.

**Proyas** · 29 May 08,, 01:15

Originally Posted by Oscar

Where did you find these two million?

I never said "two million."

You were not a true democracy either, blacks and women were excluded too...and at the end of the eighteen century Great Britain was already a de facto constitutional monarchy, the power being in the hands of the Parliament.

Look, this isn't a pissing contest over who was more democratic than the other in year X. I'm saying that both to you and to other people here. Bottom line: During the late 1700's and early 1800, most Americans viewed Britain as a tyrannical nation, and some evidence supported this view. Whether or not Britain was more or less democratic than America during that period is irrelevant to my original point: We focused on their negatives, cast them as an undemocratic power, and thus cast ourselves as the opposite--the democratic freedom fighter nation. This self-image has stuck and has consequences today. Re-read my original post if you don't understand.

Well, the history of the US is basically the same as any other country...there is no link between the distrust of the state and its enemies it had to fight. On the contrary the more a country has to struggle against powerful neighbours the more it becomes centralized. That was the relative absence of enemies at your borders that allowed a greater degree of freedom for the citizens and a lesser degree of involvement by the state.

You bring up a good point, and certainly our lack of serious foreign threats through much of our history is a factor, but I think our history of conflict is also a factor. Just ask average Americans about "Socialism" and you will almost always get a knee-jerk negative response that inevitably equates the system with our former enemies, the Soviet Union.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 May 08,, 01:19

Originally Posted by Proyas

I never said "two million."

Yes, you did.

Originally Posted by Proyas

Your opinions about Great Britain not being a tyrannical nation in the 1700's are duly noted, though I think a couple million dead ex-Colonists would disagree.

**Army5339** · 29 May 08,, 01:47

Originally Posted by Stan187

That sounds more Puritan than strictly Christian. Though at the same time, the ideal of earning your dues is not limited to just Christianity either.

I think that the early Protestants shaped our country much different than had it been a Catholic based country. The "Protestant work ethic" was an important factor in our development. Catholic colonies never seemed to fare as well.

While I don't view the "Protestant work ethic" as unique per say, I think that among the influential Christian groups of the time, it proved to be the most useful.

**dalem** · 29 May 08,, 01:59

Originally Posted by Proyas

Bottom line: During the late 1700's and early 1800, most Americans viewed Britain as a tyrannical nation,

I really don't think that's true. From what I've read relatively few American colonists thought that way. Angry at what they perceived as unjust taxation, sure. But thinking of the Crown as a tyranny was mainly a few hotheads who got lucky.

-dale

**gunnut** · 29 May 08,, 02:32

Originally Posted by Versus

Indians had bows,arrows,spears and an occasional rifle while US had rifles, pistols,Hotchkiss guns and cannons, so yes I agree, that shooting at almost unarmed opponent requires a less ammo and weapons thus reducing the over all destruction.

1. For a while, Indians were better armed than US army. They adopted the lever action repeating rifles while US army stuck with their Civil War vintage muskets and single shot rifles.

2. I don't think Hotchkiss MGs were around during the Indian wars. US army had a few Gatling guns though.

**Proyas** · 29 May 08,, 03:20

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Yes, you did.

No, I didn't, and you just proved it for me by quoting my original passage:

Your opinions about Great Britain not being a tyrannical nation in the 1700's are duly noted, though I think a couple million dead ex-Colonists would disagree.

The expression "a couple" does not always mean "two." It is commonly used to indicate a small number of something that may or may not be greater than two.

For example: "It is a couple miles away." "It costs a couple dollars."

If you doubt this, go ask some native English speakers. It is very obvious to us.

**Parihaka** · 29 May 08,, 03:56

Originally Posted by Proyas

No, I didn't, and you just proved it for me by quoting my original passage:

The expression "a couple" does not always mean "two." It is commonly used to indicate a small number of something that may or may not be greater than two.

For example: "It is a couple miles away." "It costs a couple dollars."

If you doubt this, go ask some native English speakers. It is very obvious to us.

lol

Definition

<– Back to results
couple (SOME) Show phonetics
noun [S]
two or a few things that are similar or the same, or two or a few people who are in some way connected:
The doctor said my leg should be better in a couple of days.
A couple of people objected to the proposal, but the vast majority approved of it.
We'll have to wait another couple of hours for the paint to dry.
She'll be retiring in a couple more years.
The weather's been terrible for the last couple of days.
Many economists expect unemployment to fall over the next couple of months.
I'm sorry I didn't phone you, but I've been very busy over the past couple of weeks.

In other words, two or more. I'm a native English speaker, and so is Officer of Engineers. So, as was asked, whence comes this 2 million (or more) figure?

**dalem** · 29 May 08,, 05:15

Originally Posted by Proyas

No, I didn't, and you just proved it for me by quoting my original passage:

The expression "a couple" does not always mean "two." It is commonly used to indicate a small number of something that may or may not be greater than two.

For example: "It is a couple miles away." "It costs a couple dollars."

If you doubt this, go ask some native English speakers. It is very obvious to us.

So you have a number possibly greater that 2 million in mind then?

-dale

**JAD_333** · 29 May 08,, 05:38

Originally Posted by Proyas

No, I didn't, and you just proved it for me by quoting my original passage:

The expression "a couple" does not always mean "two." It is commonly used to indicate a small number of something that may or may not be greater than two.

For example: "It is a couple miles away." "It costs a couple dollars."

If you doubt this, go ask some native English speakers. It is very obvious to us.

I've actually run across people who though a couple was less than 2, always to my surprise. Ok, say we give you the benefit of the doubt...maybe you meant a million, maybe a half or a quarter?

But considering that at most 220,000 colonists fought in the revolutionary war and casualties were about 6,200 wounded and 4,500 dead, maybe you ought to explain your number a bit better.

**lwarmonger** · 29 May 08,, 05:47

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I've actually run across people who though a couple was less than 2, always to my surprise. Ok, say we give you the benefit of the doubt...maybe you meant a million, maybe a half or a quarter?

But considering that at most 220,000 colonists fought in the revolutionary war and casualties were about 6,200 wounded and 4,500 dead, maybe you ought to explain your number a bit better.

Weren't there only a "couple" million colonists total in the thirteen colonies at the time of the American Revolution anyways?

**JAD_333** · 29 May 08,, 06:02

Originally Posted by Army5339

I think that the early Protestants shaped our country much different than had it been a Catholic based country. The "Protestant work ethic" was an important factor in our development. Catholic colonies never seemed to fare as well.

This is off tangent from your point. Putting the issue of Catholic vs Protestant work ethics aside, I was struck when reading about the Philadelphia convention that hammered out the Constitution how adament the framers were in keeping all religious influences out of it. In fact, one could call their attitude almost hostile. Constitutional scholars attribute this suspicion to the many contemporary cases of government religious oppression in the home country and in Europe.

I think someone else here came close to naming one good reason Americans don't like socialism: it's close identification with communism. But there is another: an immigrant heritage of having worked to build the so-called American dream. Folks did it the hard way aren't much disposed to making it easy for their offspring.

**JAD_333** · 29 May 08,, 06:03

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Weren't there only a "couple" million colonists total in the thirteen colonies at the time of the American Revolution anyways?

4 million, I believe, give or take a few hundred thousand...

**Parihaka** · 29 May 08,, 06:32

Originally Posted by JAD_333

4 million, I believe, give or take a few hundred thousand...

Don't you mean a couple of hundred thousand?

**JAD_333** · 29 May 08,, 06:56

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Don't you mean a couple of hundred thousand?

lol...I wanted to keep you guessing.

In that light, I was thinking, if you'll excuse my lack of humility, whether we should be prepared when someone says, "now there's a lovely couple," to see only one person standing there.