I found myself unable to ignore Michael Demmons' remarks about socialism and welfare:

I have a problem with the government performing services for people who won't fend for themselves. I make exceptions for people like children, who are the victims of cruel parents. But here's where I stand on "social assistance." I will also make some exceptions for these people - and they have to meet them all:

If a person is desperately poor.

If that person is absolutely unable to get an education.

If that person's family absolutely refuses to help him (for which every one of them should be skewered.)

If that person is so disabled that he or she can absolutely not perform any work.

Then, and only then, should the government step in and help.

Only then.

Sorry if that sounds "insensitive," but I don't generally give a rat's ass about people who don't give a rat's ass about me and live only to milk the system for all it's worth.

You may poo-poo over people who are poooooor. I don't. And I also don't want these people to be poor. Bottom line: actions have consequences. There is no one - NO ONE in this country who is unable to get an education and have a good life if they take risks and try with everything they have. Unfortunately, there are millions who know that they will be "cared for" by people like you and me no matter how little they decide to do in life. There is no one in this country who is "fortunate" and, therefore, no one in this country who is "less fortunate." Fortunate implies that by some cosmic mistake they became successful. And I have news for all you whiny leftists out there: RICH PEOPLE WORK THEIR ASSES OFF FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE. And you know something else? THEY EMPLOY YOUR SORRY ASS! And another thing: They have every damned right to leave every cent they have to their kids - just like you do.

There are always options. One of them should not be to milk me and you for everything we have.

And screw you if you believe we have a responsibility to take care of people who screw their lives up by being stupid. I won't contribute to sustaining that gene pool if I can help it.

This has reminded me once again of how the phony struggle between social conservatism and social liberalism prevents the real issue -- the establishment of socialism itself -- from ever being addressed. Republicans and Democrats preside over a permanent socialist welfare state (differing from each other only in the speed of implementation). For many years, I have often suspected that shifting the debate to secondary topics is a way of avoiding the ugly reality.

It's almost as if they know what would happen were the fluff issues finally settled.....

Or ignored. What the hell does homosexuality have to do with the federal government, anyway? Now that the sodomy laws are gone, what are they going to do? Start a giant national debate over same sex marriage?

I for one am not going to fall for it. (Even though I know that such distractions work.)

The real marriage is the permanent one between Republicans and Democrats. The longer they are married to socialism, the less likely it will ever be eradicated.

(Barring another civil war, of course....)