I obviously realize the award wasn't given to her because of her support of socialism.

...so I'm failing to see an issue here then.

...so I'm failing to see an issue here then.

 

Because she supports socialism, an economic model and a belief system that I think it so contrary to American values, I do not think she should not receive the Medal of Freedom.

^But the Medal of Freedom has nothing to do with her socialism ideals.

 

I guess I fail to see what it matters that she feels socialism is the best course for the country's economy. If she's done a magnitude of great work in helping minorities, or any other group of people, achieve more equality (freedoms) in our country how is she not worthy of the award? What does her personal belief in socialism have to do with anything?

I happen to believe that the tea party is more dangerous to the United States than the DSA. (Primarily because they have an actual chance to get their agenda enacted, which the DSA does not) That does not disqualify them from full participation in our Democracy. She was honored for a life of great accomplishment. Nothing more or less. Helping to found the farm workers is more than most of us will accomplish in a lifetime. I can ignore her politics.

Many very well thought out post in this thread and for the most part they have remained civil and on topic.

MSNBC indicated her claim to fame was 'co-founding' UFW. The other 'co-founder', Cesar Chavez was awarded the same medal by Clinton after his death.

I happen to believe that the tea party is more dangerous to the United States than the DSA. (Primarily because they have an actual chance to get their agenda enacted, which the DSA does not) That does not disqualify them from full participation in our Democracy. She was honored for a life of great accomplishment. Nothing more or less. Helping to found the farm workers is more than most of us will accomplish in a lifetime. I can ignore her politics.

 

Here's the KY Tea Party Mission Statement. What part is dangerous?

 

Mission Statement

 

The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Honestly, there is no "national party" and being a member of ANY party is actually a right of Americans. Personally, I think the "Tea Party" is every bit as dangerous as many of you believe being a member of the "socialist party" is.

Because she supports socialism, an economic model and a belief system that I think it so contrary to American values, I do not think she should not receive the Medal of Freedom.

 

 

So, I'm trying to follow your line of thinking here. Socialism is a philosophy, and even most of the hard-right people in my life agree that in theory, socialism is an admirable ideal. The practice of socialism has failed in some cases, but there are elements that are arguably successfully utilized by every Democracy and Capatilistic nation. Being a socialist doesn't have to equal negative consequences. I am sure it will be no surprise to you that in many respects, I probably fall into a socialist-like line of thinking.

Honestly, there is no "national party" and being a member of ANY party is actually a right of Americans. Personally, I think the "Tea Party" is every bit as dangerous as many of you believe being a member of the "socialist party" is.

Could you explain please?

...I probably fall into a socialist-like line of thinking.

 

So when do you plan to redistribute that 401K and become a ward of the state?

 

So when do you plan to redistribute that 401K and become a ward of the state?

 

Please. Don't devolve into hyperbole.

Please. Don't devolve into hyperbole.

 

Sorry, was going test your statement on socialists. I bet you are not anywhere near a 'socialist'.

 

As stated at the Democratic Socialists of America site their goal is to literally 'redistribute' wealth by taking capital away from people and industries. They openly favor nationalization of industries - basically soviet-style central control.

 

Its one thing to be left of center or liberal. But few are truly socialists as the defined by those who truly consider themselves as such.

So, I'm trying to follow your line of thinking here. Socialism is a philosophy, and even most of the hard-right people in my life agree that in theory, socialism is an admirable ideal. The practice of socialism has failed in some cases, but there are elements that are arguably successfully utilized by every Democracy and Capatilistic nation. Being a socialist doesn't have to equal negative consequences. I am sure it will be no surprise to you that in many respects, I probably fall into a socialist-like line of thinking.

 

Socialism is much more than a philosophy; it is an economic model. It is everything opposed to the American dream of working hard and being able to accumulate wealth if you work harder than the other guy; are smarter than the other guy; and in some cases, are luckier than the other guy. Please take the time to read the DSA website if you haven't done so already. Much of it is feel good, "corporations are evil" rhetoric designed to appeal to the emotions of people upset with big, bad Wall Street, but the basic concepts are very scary to me and frankly I think very dangerous.

 

The DSA would not just forcefully take the wealth from big corporations, but every Mom and Pop business owner. It would redistribute whatever savings you had, whatever assets you've accumulated. Socialism is a very dangerous concept and what scares me the most is that it particularly appeals to a lot of people in tough economic times like now.

I happen to believe that the tea party is more dangerous to the United States than the DSA. (Primarily because they have an actual chance to get their agenda enacted, which the DSA does not) That does not disqualify them from full participation in our Democracy. She was honored for a life of great accomplishment. Nothing more or less. Helping to found the farm workers is more than most of us will accomplish in a lifetime. I can ignore her politics.

 

Fair enough. I can accept that you (and others) feel that way.

 

But my initial post was made to stop what I thought was an attempt to prevent intelligent discussion on an issue that I think is extremely important.