>>51
Looking past the ridiculousness and loony conspiracy tinfoil hat, far right-wing propaganda twattle which comprises 85% of your post, welfare systems and social safety nets =/= socialist government. The US has had (albeit not always at the Federal level) some form of welfare. In fact, it even predates the United States when the colonies adopted the British Poor Laws that they themselves date back to 16
th century England, and even as far back as the time of King Edward III and the first labor laws in the 14
th century.
While nowhere near ever as expansive as today's welfare programs, if going strictly by your reasoning, that means that for nearly the past 800 years, England and its now former colonies including what is now the United States, have had "communistic" and "socialistic" policies intent upon "redistribution of wealth"! Instead of government departments and welfare recipients today, it was medieval feudal lords and serfs back then. So in reality, nothing much has changed there, has it?
Lemme guess, you're going to say "But the JOOS! They lobbied for the King and Parliament to pass those welfare and labor laws!" Sorry, due to the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 all Jews were banished from England until 1656. Oops! Can't blame them now, can we?
Now to expose the final hole in your logic, out of the total number of welfare recipients in 2006, whites made up 39%, blacks, 38% and Hispanics, 17%. Since that data was from over four years ago, and the current number of welfare recipients is currently up to 42 million, I would gather that all three racial groups have increased, and I'll bet you that whites still make up the majority of the three.
You've dung in your own grave, and you have no one to blame but yourself.
Is that clear enough for you, or shall I have to put on a skit with big fuzzy puppets?