What party are you registered with?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Zebo

And that brings me to Communism. Communists also believe in abolition of land and business ownership. However they are different from socialists but similar to fascists in that they are not democratic and have a "gulag" like police state. So where is America's gulag? How many political prisoners did FDR, Truman, LBJ, Cater or Bill Clinton have?

If anything the republicans are closer to communists/fascists in they beleive in a strong police state (McCarthy/Bush/Drug war/Patriot act/IRS seizures). Show they hate democracy by restricting former "felon" votes and love to restrict free speech and assembly rights.

Communism and a police state arent related. some of the stricter socialist states end up that way though.
real communism has never been reached though so you can't really say that either, as in a pure communist state there would be no need for government or currency

communism is an economic system for christsakes.. its like saying all capitalistic countries are democratic.
capitalism != democracy
communism != totalitarianism

You don't understand socialism either. Hell why even have different terms then... Communism/Marxism/Stalinism/Socialism all the same right?

Dictatorships can never be socialist because workers do not control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do! This is the difference between communism which MUST have a central planning committee which leads to a police state. I understand perfectly well capitalism/communism/socialism are all economic systems however each has it's own enevitable pitfalls politically and communism has no choice but to be a police state since democracy does'nt exist under it's central command one party system.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Card carrying Democrat, and I do contribute to the party with my wallet, not just this forum. I am offended by the conotation that Democrats are socialists. That is pure bullsh!t, and you people know it. Anyone who looks deeper than a Rush Limbaugh radio script and has the ability to think with more than two neurons activated at the same time can see that.

well, if theyre not socialist, then what are they? from what i can see Democrats want to make the populace dependant on the government in the form of more handouts and entitlements. and when the populace is dependant on the government, thats socialism.

since stated above that im Independant, I would just like to add that I would rather have a facist leader than a socialist leader.

I know you're extremly ignorant and can't even define the terms of the debate but being the good hearted liberal I am I will try and educate.

First of all liberals are democratic capitalists, which is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. Socialists think everyone should own and control the means of production. This means workers would vote on thier leadership like say at southwest air, everyone owns each firm and all firms are operated not-for-profit.

If this is not the case show me one democrat advocating abolition of land ownership? What was the name of our central planning agency for our "command economy"?

If anything Liberals have broadend capitaism not restriced it. Our FHA (FDR PROGRAM) has broadened land ownership. How many personal fortunes have been made by "liberal" lending policies and access to federally backed/insured capital since 1933? Where are your facts to support liberals are really communists/socialists?


And that brings me to Communism. Communists also believe in abolition of land and business ownership. However they are different from socialists but similar to fascists in that they are not democratic and have a "gulag" like police state. So where is America's gulag? How many political prisoners did FDR, Truman, LBJ, Cater or Bill Clinton have?

If anything the republicans are closer to communists/fascists in they beleive in a strong police state (McCarthy/Bush/Drug war/Patriot act/IRS seizures). Show they hate democracy by restricting former "felon" votes and love to restrict free speech and assembly rights.

as it would seem youre just as ignorant as i am then. it seems as though you and i are concentrating on one half of the definition of socialism.

as taken from www.dictionary.com

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

there now, hopefully you are educated as well then. and please learn to hold your tongue when you dont fully grasp a concept or idea. it only makes you look arrogant.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Ah, the things that people get riled about You guys do understand that I wouldn't purposely structure my phrasing like that if I knew you guys wouldn't get your panties in a bunch.
feral- It's just funny to see who whines about it and makes it into a big deal, like it matters or something Is it really that important?

Monsta - No, you fail to see the whole picture. I'm not comming to a conclusion based on this poll This poll is just merely more evidence(however un-scientific) that people are shying away from identifying themselves with the left. Polls have been trending this way and so has the voting and issues. My posting about it isn't "getting off" - it was an observation with a bit of a taunt And as usual when things like this are said - you have the left trying to defend their cohesiveness or trying to say it isn't happening. Well believe me Monsta - I'm not the only one who sees this happening. You'll soon see what I'm talking about. Maybe not tommorow or next week, but if things don't change course we could see a dramatic change in our political parties soon. It's happened before and it's getting increasingly likely to happen again.

Bow1 - This is an anonymous poll. Is there a reason for people not to publically state their leanings? well - I don't know - I stated mine However there are almost as many "independants" as "Republican" votes and hardly anyone at all has posted that they chose that. I wonder what that means? <shrug> But my question being that of the total votes there are relatively few admitted democrats here compared to other polling done here. Even taking into consideration national statistics - these results are "off", especially since this board leans left of center for the most part.

Bow2 - Yes I have admitted error But as you can see if you read the first section above - it was err(well kind of) for a purpose. I find it humorously interesting to see who takes issue with that wording. When said in public(around the water cooler or wherever) it makes it easy to spot the democrats. You can tell by their reaction - here it is much harder to see, but in this case it was quite obvious, no? Even you - an "independant" (although you may be a registered "No Party" member) have decided to take issue with it. why? Does it matter to you? Does it really make that big of difference?

phew - ok. I'm done typing replies to this already Enough of the whining about my usage of democrat's

CkG

I don't recall anyone "whining" about your usage. I guess if you consider the presentation of facts "whining" it wouldn't surprise a lot of folks here.

I did not make it into a "big deal". I stated plain simple facts and you argued ad nauseum without a fact in sight.

When you finally admitted your error, you claimed it was just to get our "panties in a bunch". Might we then assume that other positions you post in this forum are driven by similar motivations?

Since you said "Of course it is the democratic party", then why did you PM me to continue your baseless argument for bad Grammar?

If you cannot face or present factual information in the light of this forum, please don't slip me irrelevant messages on the side.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: feralkid
I don't recall anyone "whining" about your usage. I guess if you consider the presentation of facts "whining" it wouldn't surprise a lot of folks here.

I did not make it into a "big deal". I stated plain simple facts and you argued ad nauseum without a fact in sight.

When you finally admitted your error, you claimed it was just to get our "panties in a bunch". Might we then assume that other positions you post in this forum are driven by similar motivations?

Since you said "Of course it is the democratic party", then why did you PM me to continue your baseless argument for bad Grammar?

If you cannot face or present factual information in the light of this forum, please don't slip me irrelevant messages on the side.

Yawn

Yes - continually make an issue of it 2 days later. I used it for the reason which I stated. It works - does it not? And no - the premise you present that I unknowingly used it but would not admit it was wrong - is wrong. I use it that way ON PURPOSE because it brings certain types of people out to make it a big deal. It's funny to see people getting on some grammatical high-horse just because a purposeful twist of sentence structure. So yes I will ignore you since you seem to think that I was ignorantly doing something. It should be quite clear by now that whether or not it is grammatically correct or not makes NO relevant difference. It's just that YOU and a few other people here tend to get riled up when it is used. It's quite funny actually

Oh, and about the PM - What it contains is true and it was sent Privately to end this issue you've taken with it - but I see it didn't.

Get over it already.

CkG

 

[feralkid]

Might we then assume that other positions you post in this forum are driven by similar motivations?



?

 

[drewshin]

independent, heh heh. no need to get stuck on the dogma of a particular party at that point in time. im like a good corporation, i spread my votes around, lately though, i've been picking democrats.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I always fill in the "Other" bubble and write in "Laissez-Faire Capitalist Pig."

What can I say, I'm sick to death of Robin Hood being in charge of our government

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Cad, this Bud's for you. I liked your equation, but you got it wrong. The correct expression is: Republican >= fascist.

EDITED: I'm registered green. I would like to see a candidate who would seriously deal with our money problems, avoid the paranoia that the whole world is out to get us, and try and deal with the mass of Americans who aren't making it in this society and who need some kind of help. Traditionally that help has been financial, an aid grant. We can never get everyone to be productive, but we need to offer the tools to do that for those that want to go there. The rest? Give them enough to survive on and not feel deprived in this society. If they don't get it, they'll just rob the rest of society to get there. I probably would too, fortunately I've never had to consider this.

Give them enough to survive on without feeling deprived? And where do you propose to get the resources to do this? Oh, I forget: By STEALING from the mouth of LABOUR the bread that it has EARNED. Hey, wait, isn't that what Jefferson cautioned against? Isn't that what the British Crown under George III did that lead to the Revolutionary War?

I don't want to see anyone suffer, but dammit you CAN NOT help these people by doing it for them. All you create is a nation of needy, dependent people whose needs grow and grow and grow (Oh wait, that's *exactly* what's happened since the enactment of Welfare, isn't it?) Let the simple law of nature prevail: If you want to survive, you must do what it takes to get bread for your table, and under the rule of a law that protects the rights of individuals to their lives and the product of their labor you must do so in an HONORABLE fashion (read: Get a freaking job!)

Most people will find a way. Most people will find work and will become productive. As for those who won't, to hell with them, we *really* don't need their sorry asses in the gene pool.

Jason

 

[arsbanned]

I don't want to see anyone suffer, but dammit you CAN NOT help these people by doing it for them.

Do I detect some ambivalence there? By removing the "safety net" established in the welfare system, you would see people suffering. They wouldn't be happy people either. Combine extreme loathing with hunger, as a nation we'd have a problem on our hands.

What about a civil war to clean everything up?

Anyway, good discussion. Excellent points on both sides.

*ducks and runs*

Oh yeah: OT, Independent

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There is something that undermines your theory about the "safety net", though: 150 years of US history prior to FDR *without* stealing from some people to support others. What did people do? What their survival instinct told them to do: They got jobs or they lived off the land in the wilderness. How did that phrase go? "Life finds a way" ?

 

[arsbanned]

What happened prior to FDR taking office is The Great Depression. The New Deal was born and carried the U.S. out of the depression. That is my understanding of history, anyway.
It could be argued that his ideas have become anachronistic, but at the time, they solved the crisis.
The Darwinian concept is supportable, but homelessness would skyrocket and human suffering would certainly be unavoidable. Even the current U.S. admin- probably the most right wing in a long time- isn't pressing for such measures.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I think you're making assumptions rather than asserting documented facts here. Was there rampant homelessness prior to the "safety net" implementation? NO. In life, sometimes, we have suffering. That's just part of the process. We try to do what we can for those we care about, and that's good, but no one has a right to steal from someone else in order to make it through. No one has a right to steal, even from the rich, not even to give to the poor.

Jason

 

[buckmasterson]

If you want to live like a Republican, you'd better vote like a Democrat!

 

[arsbanned]

I think you're making assumptions rather than asserting documented facts here.

The Great Depression and what lead up to it and the following events are documented facts, last I checked.

Was there rampant homelessness prior to the "safety net" implementation?

Umm. Yes. Google for it and you'll find numerous links.

Japan and Germany and to a degree Italy responded to the Despression in another way: By taking resources from neighboring countries.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, FDR responded in the most positive way possible to a very bad situation.

/OT

 

[eplebnista]

Republican

 

[compudog]

Registered Republican, vote for who I feel is best for me & my family. Have never voted along party lines.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

I think you're making assumptions rather than asserting documented facts here.

The Great Depression and what lead up to it and the following events are documented facts, last I checked.

Was there rampant homelessness prior to the "safety net" implementation?

Umm. Yes. Google for it and you'll find numerous links.

Japan and Germany and to a degree Italy responded to the Despression in another way: By taking resources from neighboring countries.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, FDR responded in the most positive way possible to a very bad situation.

/OT

It was the second world war, NOT the New Deal, that carried us out of the depression. The big accomplishment of the New Deal was to create a huge swath of dependents across America who could be counted upon to vote for whomever promised to steal more from the rich to give to the poor, regardless of what party they were in (and yes, Republicans are just as guilty of this thievery as the Democrats are), and it obviously works.

Regardless of that, the assertion that FDR responded in the most positive way possible is little more than ignorance speaking. In the long term, how is the Welfare state helping? How is legalized theft ethical? How is intentionally created inflation a GOOD thing (given that you now have to make $40,000 a year to afford a CHEAP place to live, at least in California)?

Perhaps you aren't concerned with ethical questions, however.

Jason

 

[troglodytis]

none.