Suddenly, a few months down the road, changes have to be made. It wasn't enough just to catch the office suppliers, now the government has discovered, after spending tireless hours of research, that it also needs to nationalize the paper industry, the ink industry, and the manufacture of paper clips and staples, because they are all vital suppliers to office supply companies and their survival is vital to the economy. A few more months pass, and the makers of the bodies for ink pens are added in, along with printer cartridge manufacturing and copy machine toner, pencils both wooden and mechanical are added in as well.
Wooden pencils come from trees, so eventually, to ensure the proper flow of pencil products, the timber industry will fall under nationalization as well, which would sub branch out into the building industry, because, as you know, the timber industry supplies the lumber industry and everyone who builds needs lumber, making it a vital part of the American economy as well and therefore in need of regulation. What holds a house together, now that we think about it? Why, that would be nails and fasteners, so naturally those industries would have to be nationalized, and subsequently there would be a nationalization of the metals industries, foundries, machine shops, leading all the way back to the raw materials mined out of the earth to create them.
Tools are used in mining, building, manufacturing, as well, which would make the manufacture of tools vital to the American economy and thus in need of Nationalization.
Need I continue, or have I adequately illustrated the snowball effect (I SO loathe the "slippery slope analogy, personally) that comes of nationalization of an industry? That business alone isn't affected, all suppliers to that industry become affected as well, over the course of time, and before you can say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" nationalization is becoming a national trend. And yes, I spelled that right, I googled it to make sure. I have to say, I was mightily impressed with myself.
Last month, Congresswoman Maxine Waters demonstrated that timeless tradition of Socialists when she "outed" herself fully and publicly in calling for a nationalization of the oil industry; step 1, open mouth, step 2, insert foot, step 3, chew vigorously. Her comment did not go unnoticed by another Democrat cum Socialist, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, who chimed in this month saying practically the same thing as Waters, only without the catch of trying to stop himself from saying what he meant.
In light of the heavy fire that Waters and Hinchey have taken over their statements (Hinchey, doesn't that just sort of sound like a pirate name or something? AVAST, First Mate Hinchey, make ready to be underway!) the Democratic Party has sent out their spin doctors to try to patch up the sucking chest wound that has resulted from two Socialists in their ranks publicly showing their true agendas.
Thomas Fiery, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service that he doubts whether Waters, Hinchey or any Democrats truly support the nationalization ("socializing") of U.S. oil refineries.
"The Democrats in general do no support this idea," he said. "My guess is that neither Waters nor Hinchey really support this idea. They are ducking and covering and saying anything that might get people riled up."
Fiery added that if the federal government were to take over refineries, oil companies would profit. "The people who would be the most happy to hear about the socialization of oil refineries would be ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and all the oil companies because there really isn't much money to be made in refining," he said.
"Historically, there has been close to no profit in those industries at all," Fiery added.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't everyone been complaining because Exxon has reported such staggeringly large record breaking profits per quarter? Or does Mr. Fiery know something that we don't? It is precisely because of the huge profits that Exxon and the other major oil producers are making that Democrats would be interested in nationalizing them. What, 18.9 cents per gallon of profit for doing nothing in the production of gasoline other than imposing a tax upon it isn't enough for the federal government? At 18.9 cents tax per gallon for gasoline, the federal government makes 10 cents more per gallon than the companies that make it possible for you to put it in your fuel tank and drive down the road. And the federal government plays absolutely no role in the production of gasoline.
While Mr. Fiery can go around all he wishes to spouting off how he doesn't think that Waters and Hinchey really believe in the nationalization of the oil industry, one has to wonder and ask, if they don't really believe it, why aren't they out there saying so themselves rather than relying on the Cato institute to say it for them?
Oh, and as to the sex portion of the title, I'm sure that you, the reader, have noticed that there is no mention of sex in this article whatsoever to this point. The truth is, it's been a tried and proven marketing device that sex sells. If the title caught your interest because of the sex part, then you have just proven years of psychological and marketing research correct in participating in this little experiment.
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man