>>Is it far-fetched for me to start contemplating a Second Revolution? The Founding Fathers, in the Federalist Papers and other writings, made it clear that they expected a periodic uprising against the federal government when the feds became too powerful and too neglectful of the common citizen. With the bailouts and the steady move to socialism in this country, aren't we way over the line of what would have been acceptable to the individualists the Framers were?
>>
>>Seriously, with the bipartisan gridlock and gotchas, the difference in both major parties between what is said and what is done, what hope is there of returning to ideals and not a buncha jerks political expediency?
>>
>>Really, there is no hope. It's getting close to the time to rise up and reclaim the country and can these bast@rds. The Founding Fathers knew that this time would come; that's why they made DC a helpless demilitarized zone.
>
>The only thing in here that confuses me is the juxtaposition of "too neglectful of the common citizen" and "steady move to socialism". Are those two ideas not contradictory in the general concept of their meanings? Ignoring, of course, political systems like China which are not really socialism, but rather, elitism where only those at the top are accorded rights and benefits.

Of course it has nothing to do with socialism. It's just the yell of the day that they repeat without bothering to check what do the words mean.

In a way, it is the corporate socialism - i.e. all for one (we all bail them), one for themself. Government doing anything to help anyone, they say it's socialism. Specially if it's helping the many, that must be stopped, the budget must be cut, the entitlements must be questioned. When it's helping the many, that's still socialism (so they keep saying) except now we must do it or it's all gonna burst. Yeah, right. I trust them on that one just as much as I trust them to know what's socialism.