let's talk about george bush

well the biggest problem with this argument is that outside the realm of republican chain e-mails the democrats don't stand for any of that.

the democrats are ideologically 2 steps behind stalinist russia? come on man bullshit rhetoric doesn't do anyone especially an otherwise highly intelligent person argument any good adrian.

Who can honestly say that those are bad things?

Adrians views of political movements are so far off that I'm surprised he still knows where his head is at.

Socialism and democratic party are very, very far from each other. There's nothing wrong with those who make better money to help the ones who are less fortunate. The taxes are for everyone, even the poor will have to pay the taxes.

Socialism is about the governments total control, total. In Soviet Union even in video games you couldn't have anything to tell you apart from another player. Thus, no high score lists, no competition, no multiplayer action. You didn't own anything and everyone had just as much as you. The government provided you with everything and in return you worked as it's slave. That's socialism. Free healthcare isn't.

As to Bush, he doesn't think of the USA when making decisions, he's only thinking about his and his friends' money. It's all about oil.

Ice

I keep saying it, and nobody's got a refutation for it: Compare Democratic party platforms with the Communist party platforms (www.cpusa.org). Check off the platforms that agree in one column, the platforms they disagree over in another. Total the check marks for each column, and then get back to me on which total is more. You'll find that aside from stuff like nationalizing Walmart, the Communists and the Democrats have a lot in common. And don't even get me started on the Communists of the 1930s to 1950s. I've got a copy of their platforms...the donkeys are currently parading on those goals.

Adrian

adrian communism is about total state control of the means of production.

if you genuinely believe that this is what the dems stand for and all the other stuff you're saying about them then not only are you way off the mark, you're deluded.

i'd be interested in hearing the 30s-50s communist platform and how exactly this relates to the democrats policies in the present.

Well, let's see here. First we have Boris Yeltsin, who said of newly elected POTUS Bill Clinton in 1993 "I like him. He's a socialist." I'd think the Russian Prez might be an expert on various brands of redistributionism.

So here we go. The year is '32. One party "A", their platforms call for "immediate governmental relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works." They also call for "a system of unemployment insurance" and a "system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions."
"For the proper support of government as a step towards social justice, we propose an increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporate taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old-age pensions and other social insurance." They also called for "public development of electrical energy," and "as a further means of agricultural relief, insurance against losses due to adverse weather conditions."

Also in '32, we have party "B". "We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of the contract to which they are asked to subscribe. We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of government expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances to accomplish a savings of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the federal government. We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced. We advocate the removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop the public works."

See, I AM right, the Donkeys are the socialists of yesteryear, because Party A is the Socialist Party.

Party B, won. That would be the Democratic party. I'd love to see them run on the same platform today. But alas, they seem more interested in EXTENDING party A's platforms.

Adrian

*hears distinct rustling of straws being clutched*

because boris yeltsin says clinton is a socialist so that makes it so?

that's like me saying the pope is scottish so he must be... after all i do know lots about being scottish.

btw yeltsin wasn't a communist. the reason he ran russian even further into the shithole was because he tried to bring in a capitalist market economy too fast for them to adapt naturally or comfortably.


party A is the socialists?

The year is '32. One party "A", their platforms call for "immediate governmental relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works."

- sounds like roosevelt's new deal to me


For the proper support of government as a step towards social justice, we propose an increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporate taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old-age pensions and other social insurance."

- social insurance? kinda like "the relief" handed out during.... yup roosevelt's new deal


They also called for "public development of electrical energy," and "as a further means of agricultural relief, insurance against losses due to adverse weather conditions."

- development of the infastructure.... yup new deal also.


so if it was good enough for someone who's regarded as one of america's best presidents especially when compared to mr bush then what's the problem with it now?

I won't deny the Republicans are into it too, now, and have been for a while. See the previous post about the Republicans being the 20th century Democrats. Looking at the Communist party platforms of the early to mid 20th century, it seems impossible to me that anyone would be able to hold them up next to today's major political parties and say "Nope, nothing goin' on here." It's like the bloody memory game we all played as kids. Match two of a kind.

I'm not saying Clinton was a socialist because Boris Yeltsin said so, I'm saying that if you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and get called a duck by another duck, there's a good chance you're probably not a snowmobile. It's not proof positive, of course.

Adrian

of course it's not proof simply because CLINTON IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR EVEN CLOSE his wife falls under the same bracket.


adrian you're living in a 2 party system where you have the republicans who as far as westernised democracies go are a really far right party to have on government.

then you have the dems who try to pose as the people's party who are nothing more than simply the republicans shifted slightly to the left yet by no means a left wing party.

many Americans including your political hierarchy and media seem to think that Britain is socialist when we're under the the furthest right government since thatcher haunted the doorway of number 10 that's just how ****ed up and skewed your average americans idea of what socialism and communism is.

Well, you completely ignored the first paragraph, so I don't really have a rebuttal, other than to continue to say that 21st century Dems are 20th century Communists, and 21st century Republicans are trying to emulate them.

Adrian

dems = 20th century communists you sure about that?

EDIT: since that link obviously isn't going to work it was a poster of stalin and lenin.