John Schlitt's involvement

[Preacherman777]

Granted. If you're a socialist. Otherwise, the labels are just a matter of accurately describing big government ideas. Calling a spade a spade if you will. The problem is that socialism is incompatible with true freedom. For some, that's more important than it is to others. You may feel that socialism is sanity, but America was not founded as a conduit for socialism and therefore, you'll have to forgive those of us who think it's a bad idea.

[Jonathan]

Does John's endorsement somehow legitimize one's excitement over Classic Petra? Would our enthusiasm be tempered or boosted over what he says?

[executioner]

Does John's endorsement somehow legitimize one's excitement over Classic Petra? Would our enthusiasm be tempered or boosted over what he says?

I would think and would hope that John's endorsement or lack there of should be a nonfactor.

[Shell]

Very good question Jonathan.

[separateunion]

Granted. If you're a socialist. Otherwise, the labels are just a matter of accurately describing big government ideas. Calling a spade a spade if you will.

Big government =/= Socialism

[CatNamedManny]

Granted. If you're a socialist. Otherwise, the labels are just a matter of accurately describing big government ideas. Calling a spade a spade if you will. The problem is that socialism is incompatible with true freedom. For some, that's more important than it is to others. You may feel that socialism is sanity, but America was not founded as a conduit for socialism and therefore, you'll have to forgive those of us who think it's a bad idea.

Well, heck, this thread is already toast anyway.

Socialism has a definition. It does not actually describe any of the "big government ideas" that have been passed by the U.S. Congress in the past 70 years or so. It's a scare word, accurate only to the extent that bigger government is closer to socialism than smaller government.

Let me turn this around: Because smaller government is closer to anarchy than bigger government, I am going to label anything that would reduce the scope of government as anarchist. After all, lesser government means less ability to regulate, ohhhh, let's say deep-sea oil drilling, lead paint in children's toys or mine-safety regulations. It means a more limited response to natural disasters and maintenance of infrastructure. It means less ability to fund unemployment benefits for parents; health insurance for children and the elderly; grants and loans for college students. It means less ability to fund national defense, homeland security, border control, federal courts. It means fewer law enforcement agents, public defender attorneys, investigators. It means less scientific research into curing cancer and AIDS. It means less money to reimburse citizens who lose their property or their businesses in natural disasters. It means less money for transporting the mail. It means less ability to protect the constitutional rights of citizens when they are being discriminated against, harassed, threatened or physically harmed.

So anarchy is really just a matter of accurately describing small-government ideas. Calling a spade a spade, if you will. The problem is that anarchy is incompatible with true freedom. For some, that's more important than it is to others. You may feel anarchy is sanity, but America was not founded as a conduit for anarchy, and therefore you'll have to forgive those of us who think it's a bad idea.

[Preacherman777]

LOL! That might have went somewhere if socialism were actually the most extreme form of big government, but that would actually be Communism or in other cases Nazism. I don't think we are anywhere near Communism at this point, but I do think we are near socialism and I do think Obama and most of the other progressives that exist in both major parties would be quite comfortable in taking us there. There are also those in both parties who would not want to take us there, although much more so on the right. So if you wanted to excuse me of being in favor of extremely limited government, I would have to say guilty as charged, but that's a not anarchy, just as socialism is not Communism. You need to be more careful with your witty comparisons, just to make sure you're on steady ground.

[Timbo]

So John will not be involved with Back to the Rock then?

[sickasadog]

Sadly, politics is more about stifling debate with scare mongering than having an intelligent discussion. Loaded terms such as left/right wing, big gov't, Christian-right, socialism, fascism, communism, un-American, evangelical, etc. should be stricken from the lexicon so that people can have a reasoned discussion without getting all lathered up.

People have fallen into their differing political views for largely the same reasons. They want the same basic freedoms, accept certain responsibilities, etc. Fact is, the best way to run a nation eludes us.

One thing I have a big problem with is that many people of differing political persuasions feel that it is all so simple. They disrespect intelligent people that have different opinions and assume that they must be either stupid or evil.

I feel that what could destroy the USA is the increasing demonization of "the other" that is coming from all camps.

[Dan]

So John will not be involved with Back to the Rock then?

I'm guessing not.. John welcomed GXV with open arms for the fairwell album, that's the kind of guy John is. But don't expect that Greg would consider getting John on this project even for one second.

[Timbo]

I know. I was just trying to be funny since this thread is discussing the exact opposite of if John is or isn't singing on the new record.

[petraman]

What is this thread about? LOL!

[bakersfieldpethead]

With every progressive leader we get in office, we lose more and more of our Rights. We are so stinking regulated, that company owners can’t wipe their selves without the government knowing about it, or how much that company spent to do that.

No we need less regulation. A lot of the stuff you described should be controlled by the stage government. Our nation’s responsibility is to protect our nation, armed forces etc. I don’t want the government telling me that I have to buy insurance now or else I’m going to be punished somehow or will go to jail. It’s just like a big government to take law abiding people and suddenly turn them into criminals because those people can’t afford to do what they are asking them to do.

Yes, I will tell you our nation was founded upon the principles that the Government stay out of our Life, period, point blank, straight to the point, leave us alone!!!!!!!

We came here to escape the clutches of a government that was ruling every step we made. And we came here for the right to worship God freely. It’s not the government’s job to give us rights or to take away rights. Our rights were given by God. We now have to watch what we say because someone might be offended if we say “One Nation under God” and you see this as a good thing??? What’s so wrong with God that people want us to stop saying his name so much that they try to make the Government take our right away to say that? This is big Government, this is socialism and it’s very un-American and I’ll fight it until I draw my last breath!!!!

[Preacherman777]

I'm guessing not.. John welcomed GXV with open arms for the fairwell album, that's the kind of guy John is. But don't expect that Greg would consider getting John on this project even for one second.

Holy cow! That was extremely uncalled for. Is it any wonder that me and some others feel it's open season on Greg around here?

[separateunion]

just as socialism is not Communism

No one said this. YOU said "big government equals socialism" which is incorrect. I'm not sure how communism has anything to do with it. Also, Manny was not saying that limited government IS anarchy, he was showing how your misuse of a word could be applied in the opposite direction as well. I doubt Manny actually believes that limited government equals anarchy.