Again, we didn't get rid of Saddam for the Iraqis. We got rid of Saddam for his flaunting of the UN resolutions that he agreed to. He didn't comply, didn't pretend to comply, didn't even bother to hide the fact that he wasn't in compliance.

Sure you can be more concerned personally about what Bush can do to the US, but seriously, if you think that Bush can do more harm to the US than Saddam was doing to Iraq then I think you've got a seriously warped perception of just how powerful Bush (or any US president) is.

Now the patriot act may be troubleing, but I'd rather you wait until it actually gets challenged in the courts before you get too worked up about it.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Patriot act has anything to do with abortion, and that topic is certainly nothing new to US politics or to Bush, who hasn't really been pushing a pro-life agenda anyway. Sure he is pro-life, but its not really a big part of his platform now is it?

I also wonder what free speech rights you are refering to. What exactly is Bush trying to do in attacking free speech? The privacy and trial issues (I'll assume you are refering to the Patriot act) are of another matter, but again, they probably won't survive their fisrt contact with the courts anyway.

Two observations:

First: You seem to misunderstand or do not know of the difference between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM. Be advised, there actually IS one. COMMUNISM is "the stuff that never worked and never will" as you said. You know like in the Soviet Union. That was not SOCIALISM. COMMUNISM is based on SOCIALISM and extends it. For example, Germany, Spain, Italy and several other countries are governed by SOCIALIST parties (or semi-socialist parties) in the moment. Once and for all: SOCIALISM is not COMMUNISM!!! I get tired of repeating that to American citizens. Don't you learn stuff like that in school or at least at Uni? You should seriously start reading some Engels, Marx, Bakunin & Alberts!!!

Second: Lemmings DO NOT jump off cliffs, people. Believe me or ask someone who knows somethin about biology. They don't! That's just some stupid idea that got pumped into your brains by watching semi-scientifical TV shows! Get off it! Get real people!!!

~SDC~

Just giving something the name communism doesn't actually make it a communist state. I don't consider a fascist dictatorship that uses comunism as an excuse to take what the want from the people to be a real communist state. Hell, they had _money_! How communistic could they be?

A true communist state has never been tried. A true capitalist state has never really been tried either, though we've come a _lot_ closer on that than we have with communism.

You want to take examples from actual communes or american farming towns or something like that and i'll gladly accept them.

Try to claim that the USSR was a real communist state and show why that leads to failure, and i'll just pick some fascist tyranical state that makes a vague nod to capitalism and show how that is doomed to failure as well.

Weather lemmings actually jump off cliffs or not is not the point. The expression has gained common use, and its understood what it means weather the expression has a basis in reality or not.

Furthermore, I'm tired of cranky Euro's (no offense eh?) telling me the differnce between socialism and communism. My wife is French and I get quite enough of the distinction at home LOL. I think most non americans just don't understand the conotation of socialism and communism in the US. They are just bad words to most people, that the distinction between our democrats and [insert euro-country here]'s socialists is close to nothing is missed by most people.

ubertaco:

So what if he didn't comply? He didn't have anything that could hurt us. Certainly not compared to N. Korea. Yet the Bush administration was quite happy to use the "we're liberating Iraq" propoganda to push the way.

They claimed he had WMDs and was willing to use them, we invaded, and either they didn't have them, or weren't willing to use them.

We said it was because he was flaunting UN resolutions, and we then proceded to flaunt UN resolutions in order to remove him. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know how much harm Bush could do in the long run, but all i said is that Bush can do more harm to me than Saddam could have. That's not to say that i don't care what Saddam does to the Iraqis, but i have every right to object to how i'm treated, objecting to how other people is treated is a bit trickier.

The Patriot Act is not the only thing i'm worried about, it's just an example. The Bush administration has made numerous decisions about reproductive rights, i can go look them up for you if you wish. I have a friend who works at a non-profit sex education center. She was looking into getting a job with the Department of Public Health, and found that under the current administration for all the available positions she'd have to agree to teach abstinance as a primary method of birth control.

There's nothing official limiting free speech yet, but there's a whole lot of unofficial pressure from the Republican side. Those who speak up against Bush or the war are often accused of being unpatriotic, and are told that they should stand behind Bush in this time of war.

Two Republican Senators who _never_ served in the military critisized a Democratic Senator (i believe) and Presidentical Candidate for speaking against Bush and called him unpatriotic. Said Democrat was a highly decorated _Vietnam_War_veteran_!

If the Republicans want us to limit our free speech, and a large percentage of the public seems to agree with them, why do you think it is that i shouldn't be worried?

But in any case, i'm going to do like vernmeister2u and get back to what i'm supposed to be doing for awhile I'll check back later though!

Again, you can pick and choose which evidence you want. You can try to make third rate analogies of facist states if you want. The fact is, USSR, Cuba and China are (or were as the case may be) shining examples of why communism doesn't work. Color it how you want.

~SDC~

At any rate, since some dont' want to consider factual evidence that doesn't support their position, I got a positive modifier to my resistance skill check. I made my saving throw again! I'm outta this waste of time.

~SDC~

Now wait a minute here... (even though you are going awol for a bit )

Please tell me what UN resolution the US disobeyed? There was no resolution that prohibited the use of armed force. The agruments in the security council had to do with weather the current resolution called for armed force, that the French, Germans, and Russians dithered on it (for finacial reasons since they had the most to lose in the removal of Saddam) only forced the US hand in as much as saying, fine we'll do this without UN authorization. As though UN authorization has any meaning these days anyway...

And yes you do have every right to object to how you are treated, or how you percieve treatment, that is called free speech. Just as people had the right to object to the war, others had the right to ask them to not object to the war, I see no curtailing of free speech here whatsoever. One side says we don't agree, the other side says you should agree. There isn't any 'or else' involved either. Besides the rhetoric from both sides got quite heated, and while I don't care for that kind of jingoism, its not as though anyone was actually threatened with a Gulag for stating their opinion.

I am not aware of the stance of the administration on birth control so I'll take your word for it. It sounds in line with the republicans anyway. But your own words are:

"and found that under the current administration for all the available positions she'd have to agree to teach abstinance as a primary method of birth control."

I'll highlight the "...as *a* primary method..." part. What is wrong with this? Should abstinance not be taught as a primary means of birth control? It is after all the only 100% effective method out there. Now if the stance were *the* primary method you'd have a better argument, but as it is I don't see any problem with this (and I'm not exactly a big proponent of abstanance either).

Anyway, been fun to debate this with you I'll be back later or not myself... got too many of these boards to keep up with these days

I think I should mention somthing. I think we all realise that regions often share the same political view. I come from a very left region, I accually live in a university town (4 or 5 universities + countless colledges) which that is an extremely high ratio for the ammount of people who live here, and I'm very liberal for this region. So when I hear anti-abortion talk I must say, I reel back aghast.. That's the first think said in this conversation that really shocked me.. I have a hard time (and remember, this is me) considering the fact that people other than Christian Fundamentalists are anti abortion. It's stuff like that when I have to say, its for freedoms like that I believe everyone should have. Its the freedom to live your live how you want that people like me strive for. I don't care if its abortion to euthenasia to drugs, People should have the right to live their own lives.

I totally agree with Daetrinn with mostly all his points (I just don't remember them all) and when he said
"Just giving something the name communism doesn't actually make it a communist state. I don't consider a fascist dictatorship that uses comunism as an excuse to take what the want from the people to be a real communist state. Hell, they had _money_! How communistic could they be?"

He's right. He said the "Pure Communism" and that means Communist State that works, that means worker's paradise. You CANNOT include USSR, China, etc. In that because the are NOT a "Pure Communism". They are not the Marxist Ideal either: If you read the Communist Manifesto then you will learn Marx didn't have it in for the : Feudals or Non-Industrial Bourgoises. Infact he wanted to preserve traditional fuedal ties as they were "Natural" He condemns the prolitatriat uprisings against such people. So the Russian Revolution, being serfs versus the Tsarists, wasn't very communist at all. Communism was an uprising against horrid working conditions in factories (Which was ironic, because if anyone knows alittle history on Marx, knows his benifactor, Engles was a factory owner) Marx was advocating an oppressed people rise up against working conditions that today would be highly frowned upon and (don't quote me on the next part, because its sort of a "Saying") violation of human rights. Don't confuse Stalinist, Maoist or Leninist (I'm not sure if there is a Kruschevist or Gorbachevist, I don't think so) gov'ts with Communism(Pure) or Socialism! Otherwise the workers will rise against you and your capitalist imperialist ways(joke)!

If you haven't read it(Communist Manifesto), I suggest you pick up a copy at project gutenburg. Its worth the read.

~SDC~

"......singin songs, and carrying signs. Mostly say: Hooray for OUR side."
I'm right. Your wrong. My side is better. Bush sucks. The president I wanted would run this country better.
I know more about foreign policy than our own government so I know whats right and wrong. My dad can beat up your dad.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
How about lets play GalCiv?

Read it- its a scary piece of idealistic crap, all the more so because Marx was an economist and ignored it.
I can't believe people here actually think of communism, or any such group think idiocy as being a viable system for the world. I used to lean a lot to the left, but saw too much around where I lived about the failures or socialist measures (in India, Ethiopia) to buy into that- Im now 20, and a conservative/libertarian, and proud of it.

capitalism/communism is the perfect system. the only problem there has never been a REAL capitalist/communist system because people screw it up. otherwise capitalism/communism is a great theory. if everyone did capitalism/communism then everything would be perfect. and you pinkos/facists are stupid to think otherwise.

Hmmmm. Bobo think Communism great too. Him get same as everyone else. Not have to work hard. Live in dumpster with 2 other families. Stand in line for toilet paper. See rulers live like rich capitalists. Get head knocked in when say him say not think right. Yes. Bobo smart. Him think communism much better than system we have now.Bobo have to work hard to get all things Bobo wants. Not fair.

No one said the state of communism you're describing is good. It was said a Perfect Communist state is the perfect state. We acknoledged that Communism is hard to achieve. Then you go bash USSR "communism", which is like saying "Pepsi or coke would be great cola if they had the mistakes fixed" (Random Example, I have a coke bottle next to me) "I hate cocaine! Its bad for you! It's Illegal!" They share the same name thats it. Can we get over the fact that Communism in practice (thus far in history) isn't exactly like the blueprint says it to be. No one is disputing that fact. To reinterate for the nth time "A perfect comunist state is the best government" Now, PLEASE NOTE THE ADJECTIVE! Perfect: Without flaw. What We're saying is IF COMMUNISM WORKS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO IT WOULD BE PERFECT. Now no more anti communist statements denouncing the Soviet Union because it is IRELEVENT to all other previous statements made. Start up some "I have the Soviet Union" thread and BLEH!

PS. I'm a little grumpy because it is late here. Sorry for the outlash

~SDC~

Looks like a lot of people blaming people who hold different politics for the evils of the world.

I guess everyone can be right, then.

~SDC~

I've been reading through the board, and I saw some funny, incongruous statements that I just had to pick on!

----- From #64, Verenti
I live in Canada, and we spend 10 billion dollars a year on holding criminals.
----- From #75, Verenti
"In this conversation, I'm not mad, I don't wish anyone harm except extreme conservitives, then I want you dead"
-----

I want your country's ten billion dollars worth of criminals dead so that you can feed all your homeless people without raising taxes.

----- From #76, DannyB
"I don't waste my money on stupid things like digital cameras."
-----

No, you waste it on intelligent things, like GalCiv.

----- From #81, Za01phod
"Travis, siocialists are usually the people who do the hard work."
-----

On a more serious note, this is a ridiculous assertion. You have no quantitative, or even qualitative, evidence, beyond your own biased opinion, to back this up. I'm not saying that anyone else works more or less, I'm just saying that you have no business making this statement (and especially if you don't spell it "socialists").

-----From #83, falafel

I have seen this interview and he does no such thing, what he did was pointing out something that was obvious to all parties involved at the time. But let us not get stuck at a single person, how about the latest casualty :
-----
From your link: "While his dissmisal from the paper has ties to the immediate conflict in Iraq, **Norr's removal may actually be the result of a long-standing feud with the management.**" (emphasis added)
"Norr also made pro-Palestine statements that angered coworkers, according to The Examiner."
-----

Needs no explanation. Engages coworkers in heated debate while on the job, has trouble with management? Anyone with these types of problems would be a likely result of the next possible downsizing. Read the whole article, not just the editorial parts.

-----From #90, falafel
"you can easily remove the freeloaders buy [sic]requiring some sort of service for the payments"
-----

This is not done in welfare in the US even today, and were it proposed, I have little doubt that Democrats would be up in arms about it (and possibly even some conservatives as well). Welfare has never been thus in the United States, and I sincerely doubt that any legislative force in the near future will support that kind of action.

-----From #96, Daetrinn
"Second of all, i think the quality of life of _everyone_ would be higher if people didn't have to worry so much about money and where the next meal was coming from."
-----

A couple things. First, I admire your sentiments, let me start out with that. Second, it would seem so, yes, but though there are a few working socialist states, in history, how often has it worked? Not too. Moreover, the argument is flawed because a good deal of people would actually be dropping in quality of life, since they would be richer before the wealth was spread out. Admittedly, this would be fewer than the people who would be better off (because income is positively skewed), however, I think there are a good deal of people who worked to earn what they have.

I think that one of the things that socialism and communism ignore is the behaviorist nature of human psychology. Behaviorism is essentially a psychological system that relates behavior to stimuli and to rewards. To put it quickly, this is how a lot of conservatives (and people opposed to socialism in general) think: If you tell people they don't have to worry, since they will always be able to eat, what is the motivation to do work? If you tell people that they will only be able to eat if they work, but that they will be compensated with the same amount as long as they work, what is the motivation for anyone to work exceptionally hard, or with brilliance, or to acquire a high education?

For those of you who would answer, "Idealism, curiosity, interest in a subject, love for my fellow man" I admire you a lot, but -you are a minority-. Most people don't care, and increasing education budgets and other things like that will not change this essential fact, that there are a whole heck of a lot more people who would rather just get by than there are people who geniunely want to do something incredible. Go into any public, not rich-boy highschool in the country and you can see this clearly. Go into the places where the Everyman works, and it is plain as day. People would rather scrape by, and, if given an opportunity to do so, will do so, with avengance.

Oh, BTW, sorry for posting on posts so old. I can't read through the whole thing in one day you know!

Oh, and I agree with whoever's saying that if Communism were implemented in a perfect world, it would be the best system. "Somebody's tellin' da truth, praise Jesus!" No, but seriously, I would say this is accurate, though I would consider myself a conservative.

Also, I admire those of you who are keeping a cool head about this and -not typing in all caps- since it hurts my ears and it's not proper for civil conversation. After all, we all play the game (except me, who is still waiting for the demo to come out first), right? We should not be insulting each other. The divisions we allow to occur because of differing political views can sometimes be much more harmful than whatever flaws are in the political views themselves.

Hmm. Daetrinn, I need a clarification of a statement of yours so I can be sure of your point. You stated earlier that "In a true communist state, the government wouldn't decide what you do, you would have just as much choice as in a capitalist state if not more." I have trouble seeing that. In a capitalist system, supply and demand would eliminate excess jobs or allow the creation of new ones, but a communist system requires fulfilling all of the survival needs of the people and discourages the production of excess services or products that do not benefit the people, so in a mythical tiny pure communist country where only 1000 carpenters are required to build houses and fix them, what happens to applicant #1001? The way I see it, since he is required to get a job to do his part in serving the people (barring disability or age, of course), he will obviously not be a carpenter. He might be assigned to be a lathe worker or a woodcarver or someone with similar skills instead, but not a carpenter.

And in the matter of consumer choice, what choice? Joe and Rosie are both lettuce farmers. In a pure capitalist society, both grow their crops and open their produce stands and set their prices. As consumers, we can buy Joe's lettuce, Rosie's lettuce, or even both. It is the buyer's choice. As capitalist consumers, we decide which is the better deal. In a pure communist state, both farmers give their lettuce to the State, which sells it in a State produce stand at the State regulated price. Where is the consumer choice there?

Now, as for which theoretical system I favor, that is a tough choice. In pure capitalism, I have a large variety of choices so long as I am fit to work. If I get disabled, then I had better hope that friends/family/charity take care of me (or that I bought some nice disability insurance with all that consumer choice of mine). In the pure communist state, I get taken care of no matter how bad I get messed up, but with only minimal choices. There will be no cutting edge surgery I could buy under the capitalist health care system or being able to buy passion fruit in Siberia. I would have to settle for whatever goods and services the communist government chose fit to provide in my region based upon the people's production and overall needs. So, in the end, I guess I would prefer being in the pure capitalist system myself.

And to think the headaches get worse when we add religion and nationalism into the mix!

Well, no offense taken but I still got the impression that some of you people got it majorly wrong. And because American people often (not always) tend to ignore non-American views (esp. European ones), which is really a shame that they do, I will stop trying to impose my views on you. I do not feel the need to force my views and opinions upon the whole world. With this, my final statement in this discussion conludes.

Signing off,
Fabian

~SDC~

Vridian,

This attitude: "And because American people often (not always) tend to ignore non-American views (esp. European ones), which is really a shame that they do,"

is perhaps why so-called "well-meaning" Europeans are not received kindly. The almost universal disdain and condescension implied in the above attitude is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Now, I agree with you that a lot of people are apparently unable to tell the difference between socialism and communism, or is even able to explain what a "socialist democracy" is, but the best way to educate someone is not to explain at length how ignorant they are (unless you just want to annoy them, in which case, go for it. It's your whirlwind).



~SDC~

ah yes..."in a perfect world." What say you to that, Bobo?

Bobo say there is no perfect. Problem with perfect is people. Once have people, not have perfect. Bobo laugh at perfect communism. he make joke in other post. Him funny. And smart.
Bobo say : in "perfect world" people not gaga over girl with big butt and hairstyle like Ramada Inn maid. In "perfect world" tubby skank who fondle president not on TV show.
Bobo say since perfect not exist.

Thank you, Bobo. Now here's your banana.

I refrain from calling you and idiot, sir.

But that's not a disputed fact.

~SDC~

..Moderator Hat on...

No personal attacks please.

It is easy to fall into the intellectual trap of defining intelligence as being those who agree with you and ignorance being in others as the degrees in which they don't agree with you.

~SDC~

"First: You seem to misunderstand or do not know of the difference between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM. "

I know the difference between them. It's just the basic ideas are so similar that I consider them both the same thing.

and now back to you falafel


"I have posted above what i think of viewing these actions in "context"."

were going to have to agree to disagree here then. There are alot of less than moral nations out there. If you make enemies with all of them at once, you might be biting off more than you can chew. Do I believe we should stand by and support a government that commits attrocities? No, absolutely not. No matter the situation. The thing with the kurd's being gasses happened in 1988 tho, correct? We supported them in the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988. Now when it ended and when the kurds got gasssed is another question. I also don't know how long we supplied weapons to him, but I don't think we knew he was going to do what he did.

"I did not know that, but it's a bit outside the point of whether they should have been sold at all."

Agreed, all countries should be wary of who they sell arms to. The US is by no means the only one guilty of this. France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea. All those countries sell weapons, some of them nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Selling conventional antiquated equipment is one thing, if you sell it to the right person. The US made a mistake backing and selling weapons to Iraq. After the first one, we cut those ties. Unfortunately, a number of countries who I already broguht up decided not to despite UN sanctions. I think I'm rambling again tho.

"In sweden you get cut of some or all welfare if you to not agree to going treatments for drugs if your a drug addict. ( which is actually the reason why we have a few homeless people )."

In the US, their trying to pass a law that you need to pass a drug test in order to receive welfare. I agree with this and it would greatly increase my respect for the system. It started in Michigan and was past. But Extreme Left organizations (what you would consider the socialist's in this country) took it to a higher court to get it reversed because they said it takes away from the rights of people on welfare. They won. Now it's going to the supreme court, where who knows what will happen.

The point I'm trying to make with this is, this is typical in US politics and it's the main reason why a socialist society wouldn't work for us. It happens more with the left denying something that the right brought up just because the right brought it up. The right are no saints either, but they're much more willing to talk it out than the left. If you don't think the left's way, your wrong.

"Now if we just can get you to vote for Nader . Just kidding, glad to hear that though, hope you can be a part of a society that feels secure enough to do that."

Some day, It will be. Just not now. Whether that united society comes from socialism or capitalism. It will come when the world is ready. Unfortunately the world is still to focused on putting the needs of their own country ahead of the needs of world. This includes everyone.

"Considering the state of the us society right now i would claim it's a bit more than little currently. But who knows, things can change ?!?"

I don't think I understand you here, but I'll try to explain anyway. Right now it ranges from legitimate people who are having a hard time trying to find a job from people sitting on their ass all day collecting welfare checks and watching jerry springer. Unfortunately, the latter seems to outweigh the former, this could be because the guy looking for a job finds one quickly and gets off welfare tho. Both sides(political parties) in the US have ideas for reform, I just happen to think the consevatives, which are the ones who brought up the drug test idea, have a much better chance of reforming the system than the liberals ideas do.


One last thing, I said earlier in this post (this thing is getting pretty big) that hillary said socialism is communism with a heart. The conservatives in this country seem to be going for(IMO) capitalism with a heart, meaning they want to keep capitalism, which has worked so well for us over the past 200 years, and add social programs so that everyone has their chance to make something of themselves and no one is neglected or homeless. The problem is, the left is offering something for nothing( to keep a voter base IMO, no one turns down the hand that feeds them), the right offers something for those willing to work for it. It's not to hard to see which one is more appealing.

later

~SDC~

I need to get back to work, but i'll make a few comments to DannyB while data is building.

I'm glad you could clear up for us the difference between the left and right wings with your broad generalizations. I guess the fact that i actually find the liberal agenda more appealing doesn't really count?

The left has some crazy people in it, but so does the right. For every organization like PETA (some of their ideals i agree with, but their methods are full of crack) there's also a group like Limbaugh or Falwell and their followers. "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."

As for the politicians on both sides, the majority of _both_ sides are probably corrupt and power hungry. Of the two however, i prefer the liberals as the lesser of two evils, because at least i believe in what they _say_ they want.

The Conservatives may say they want to help people, but the spirit seems to be lacking. They don't seem to want reform, they want reversion.

"this could be because the guy looking for a job finds one quickly and gets off welfare tho." For some people maybe. My ex-girlfriend is living with a guy who's been unemployed since he graduated from college with a CS degree. At first he tried to find a job in the computer industry, and couldn't because of the crappy economy. After about six months of that he started trying to get a job anywhere. Over the winter he got a job at some harvest festival fair thing paying minimum wage, but that obviously dried up after Thanksgiving and he hasn't managed to find anything else since then. Part of the reason he might not be doing so well at it is because he's stressed and depressed about not having a job and the money situation they're in, and that may show through to the interviewers who might decide that he's not enthusiastic enough. I've had to loan them about $4000 over the last seven or eight months just so they could pay the rent. (My ex has a job paying barely over minimum wage, and she'd really like to go back to school to finish her degree but she can't as long as she's the only one making any money)

Their life pretty much sucks at the moment, and they're not even on welfare! Just because someone is trying to get a job and trying to work hard does not mean that they'll necessarily get a job or necesasrily be able to get by. Some people may not be trying very hard, but it's hard to tell which is which just by looking at them from a distanc, and although i agree with some limits on welfare (think the whole system ought to be rebuilt up from scratch, but that's another thread) however every limit you put on it may by screwing over someone who doesn't fit into nice little imaginary boxes. The founding father said it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn one innocent man, if necessary i'd rather support 10 people who aren't trying hard enough with a bare minimum of living than denying support to one person who'd their best but is getting screwed over by circumstances.

To me the conservatives seem mostly concerened with ways to limit what they have to give away, with lining their own pockets, increasing their own power, and promoting their own moral agenda. That certainly seems to be the goal of those who currently have the most influence on the conservative side at the moment. (Three out of the four is probably true for the liberals as well, but at least their moral agenda is that i should be able to do what i want as long as i'm not hurting anyone.)

How many people really think that the best way to improve the economy is to give more money back to those who own lots of stock? It's interesting that the people who tend to own lots of stock also tend to already be rich.