That is very fux0red.

The whole idea behind freedom is that you don't have to give a shit about your fellow man if you don't want to :D

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason we Communism and Socialism to work.

Ahh yes, the old "taxes=communism=democrats are communists" argument, a real deep thinker came up with that one.

I would cite that quote makes it pretty clear that Hillary has some intents on redistribution of wealth for the "common good. " Sounds pretty marxist.


Of course the Clinton's are not real communists and do not wish for such a system on the U.S. They are making too much money off capitalism to want to see it destroyed. What they are are free-market parasites. Spouting leftist phrases and ideology gets them votes and support among the ignorati and the idlers who represent a large part of the population. These people would much rather have you make the money and then take it from you. They're closer to Jesse James than they are to Karl Marx.

Really? It sounds to me like they are just acknowledging the fact we have the largest defecit in history and encouraging some fiscal responsibility to help fix it. Thats always been the democrats' plight, to suck it up and say what people don't want to hear, to fix the economic problems the republicans caused. Even so, whats wrong with saying one marxist thing? He was a very intelligent philosopher with a lot of good points to make, they aren't using his whole philosophy to turn us into a communist society. Marx dwelled on the importance of separation of church and state as well, perhaps we should dump that "because its marxist!!"

no matter what prefix you give it all government is a mechanism for control. real freedom does not involve control. the type of person you are determines you definition of virtual freedom. just because you happen to be content with your circumstances doesn't mean much to the rest of us.

reminds me of some kind of chickenshit panic called the "red scare" once upon a time in america. what we have here is a way of life, that's not something that needs to be validated by government or individuals. it either works or it don't. if there's something better out there, a better way of life, then people will adopt it. if democracy really is superior then we have nothing to be affraid of. that's the kind of freedom this country had in mind a long time ago, before television, before rhetoric.

carry on with your witch burning gentlemen.

You say ignorati merely latch on to key phrases. How might you classify someone who hears a marxist-looking quote and immediately ceases thinking about the applied meaning or purpose of that statement?

I don't think she was encouraging fiscal responsibility at all, unless you see"fiscal responsibility" as having the government be in charge of spending your money "for the common good" of course. She has no intention of "fixing" the deficit, or at least no track record in that direction, She of course spouts retoric in that direction, but thats not the issue. She didn't mention fixing the deficit once in that speech, but instead spoke broadly about health care, education and other stuff..

Letsee assuming that every man, woman, and child shares in the debt equally, we're talking about owing somebody approximately $25,000 apiece once the debt limit is raised again this summer. Add $1,500 apiece per year will be added with no end in sight, which isn't necessarily good. You ready to put in $25,000 this instant if it would fix the deficit?

You wanna fix the deficit, start cutting government programs. Simple enough.
Pick one or just cut them all by a few percent. Either would work, but neither would fly as the handout system fuels votes.

With your reply?

I agree, but then again, I like Marx a little.

I think o'l Karl had some pretty good ideas, however, he forgot, or at least didn't want to admit too one fundimental thing.. Human Greed. IMO Communism would have worked if the could have figured out how to stamp that out.

Of course, some would say thats one of the basic problems with our system too.

"Thats always been the democrats' plight, to suck it up and say what people don't want to hear, to fix the economic problems the republicans caused."

Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe that? I see there is no point in debate after that statement, it is all the evil Republicans spending all our money. Don't let those pesky wars alter your perception, it was all Republican policy! Imagine that, during peace, we have have democratic presidents (outside of Reagan), and the defecit goes away. During Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Bush1, Bush2) we are at war, and there is a defecit. Im just talking crazy though! The only anomoly is Reagan, who increased spending for military acrossed the board for the cold war, then you might have something to go on, but there are reasons here. And guess what, if we elect a democrat in fall, there will be no more war, and POOF, the defecit goes away. God bless the Democrats, it was all their policies that did it.

Defecits aren't paid off in one year, I never advocated doing so, they are paid off little by little, so that whole rant of yours is a little weird.
All Clinton's speech is about is repealing the Bush tax cuts. I don't see how you go from zero to communist with that one move. A lot of people thought it didn't make sense to cut taxes at a time of intensely rising military costs, doing it just so you can give people a $300 HANDOUT is bad for the country and clinton says the democrats plan is to repeal those cuts to "get america back on track." And you're trying to lead people away from thinking critically about america being offtrack, by throwing around unrelated commie-scare BS. Doing things that are bad for the country, admittedly, is not a communist move, but why the hell is that a good thing?
Cutting government programs? Funny, thats exactly what Clinton did, he shut down a bunch of superfluous military bases and pared down certain black hole defense projects, so whats your beef with democrats? Tinfoil hat-wearing paranoiacs like you might be concerned about governments that expand their strength and control by spending wildly on the military, but this administration fooled you because they didn't spend your tax money, they borrowed elsewhere instead to create a $6 trillion defecit.
Don't you think little tax cuts are a much more obvious handout system meant for grabbing votes?

MrWizard, you are a pompus douche-bag. Your story is full of holes! There is nothing wrong with socialism nor is there anything wrong with it being in the democratic party, if indeed it is. I don't know why you bother submitting such bull crap. Are you really that gullibe? Come on man, that article is from San Diego. 'Nuff said right there. You never even had an argument. Silly little right-wing boy.

One, Clinton increased government spending in federal, non-miltary programs as much as he cut military spending. What Clinton did do was listen to Greenspan and increase taxes. Bush Sr. was told to do this but listened too late. Clinton acted on it immediately. Clinton (who won with only 43% popular vote, seems that gets overlooked nowadays by the Gore/Bush vote) started as an unpopular president, who had a deficit for most his presidency. It was not until the end that the deficit finally went away, and that was with tremendous tax increases (Which could have been less, but Clinton, again, INCREASED spending acrossed the board, remember the "stimulus package"?? Republicans had to knock that down, or 190 billion in spending would have happened.). Cutting of government programs is NOT a democratic philosophy, and never will be. They cut military, and thats about it. They INCREASE everything else. God help us if they ever get socialized medicine in. I will not relate democrats to communist, because thats a silly comparison. They are not alike. But stop laying ridiculous statements like "Thats always been the democrats' plight, to suck it up and say what people don't want to hear, to fix the economic problems the republicans caused.". They hold no water, and are ignorant attack statements. Economic problems are caused by BOTH democrats and republicans. The president is checked by congress, and SURPRISE, there was a republican congress during Clinton's presidency. Because of this, large cuts were allowed, large increases were not. If you are going to play holier then though, don't go blaming republicans for everything and acting like democrats are saints and can do no wrong. They are equally to blame.

Is similar to my beef with republicans, they both want to take my money. Admittedly the republicans are at least honest enough to admit they want to take my money for them. The democrats want to take it way "for me" Its the unbridled arrogance of people like hillary which irks me. Her entire case is based on her perception that "they" know how to spend my money better than I do .. "for the common good" of course.

Cut the spending across the board. Military, Social programs, both. I don't really care where you start, but start somewhere and keep going. Stop spending money on military programs just as rapidly as you stop given handouts to the people who don't want to work. (I said want, because *cant* is only a tiny select case) You've got lots of fluff on either end of the spectrum so get out the sissors and start cutting .. I'd vote for anyone that would shut down the next military spending program AND the next welfare handout program.

Given the current separation of wealth in this country I think a raise in the minimum wage or the alternative minimum tax is covers a much larger portion of the population than a tax cut that only affected people making between 75,000 and 250,000 a year. Those are both Hillary platforms. She knows that she can get more votes by raising the rent and redistributing it than she can *ever* by tax cuts. Its all about politics in the end. Cut taxes and you get money to campaign from the "rich" Don't need money because you have plenty, redistribute the wealth and get votes from social programs and other handouts ... (oh and buzz a few schools and talk about how evil capitalists are, that always
good for a few votes)

And lastly, I implied Hillary was a Marxist, not a communist. YOU took my implication and brought it to the extreme in to attempt to make your point. Its also interesting to note that you assumed I was a "tinfoil hat-wearing paranoiac" which is pretty far from the case. If you were paying attention to what I was saying rather than assuming that anyone one who thinks Hillary is a budding Marxist *has* to be a right wing war mongering paranoid.

"the way to this end is to achieve political power at any cost " (bonus points if you know which Marxist said this)

Speaking of right-wing war mongers, where is hollowpoint nowdays?

Nothing wrong with it? Bwahahahahahahaha. That's just funny. Thanks, I needed that this early in the morning. And since you were just being humorous I won't bother citing examples of all the failed socialist issues that are just "perfect."

He made his argument quite well and was able to refute all points. You attack him rather than the argument in an attempt to discredit his views. This is what one calls an ad hominem. Time to grow up fucktard.

....was saying rather than assuming that anyone one who thinks Hillary is a budding Marxist *has* to be a right wing war mongering paranoid you'd have figured that out ...

The most pathetic thing of all is that people are so utterly and completely willing to categorize their political philosophies into the two-party system, and attempt to pigeonhole everyone else's beliefs as well. It's been said before that a two-party system would ruin this country, but people are simply too stubborn and short-sighted to consign anything beyond a strictly left-wing/right-wing perspective. I sure as hell know my beliefs don't fit into a two-party system: i'm pro-military, anti-Bush, pro-environmentalism, anti-death penalty, pro-choice, and I'm perfectly fine with falling somewhere in the middle. Political "cliques" of democrats and republicans just make me sick...the world is not cleft in twain solely by diametrically opposed philosophies.

Hillary's quote was not communist...naieve, certainly. Intentionally directed to the naive lower class? Perhaps. Many, many people I know didn't see a dime of those tax cuts. You want to generate growth? Give those tax cuts to the poor--they'll be sure to spend it. But, that didn't happen, and in true Dubya fashion, a disproportionate amount went to the upper middle class and higher. Her reference to "taking things away from you" was clearly about the tax cuts, not displacing people from their homes and putting them in peasant villages. The solution does not lie in higher or lower taxes--it lies in deflating government spending and decreasing military spending where it's completely superfluous.
I have friends who have government jobs, and one of them quit because of all the greed...if you want something, you artificially inflate the budget and take it, no questions asked. There's no system in place to handle anything but the grossest of government waste. Money gets misappropriated everywhere. As for the military, being in it has given me a view into just how much gets wasted, for no good reason. Humvees get absolutely awful gas milage, but in most places there's no system in place to get better civilian vehicles for use in cases where a Humvee would be completely impractical. Whole families of husbands deployed to areas like Turkey are ALL getting "combat pay", resulting in hugely bloated salaries that I hesitate to complain about because we don't make much in the military, but you don't sign up to make money in the first place, and one of the positive things the Bush administration has done is raise the military salary gap to make serving with a family much, much more comfortable. Also, restrictions on supplies are fairly liberal, so more than a few of the people I've come to know in the military have been easily able to "aquire" (read:steal) gear on a widespread basis. I suppose it would only add up to a few hundred dollars per person, on average, but of course that adds up to quite a damn bit all in all.
In Sweden, taxes are upwards of 50%, but the people are happy because it gets put in the right places: medical care for EVERYONE, quality schooling for EVERYONE. We could learn a little bit from that. I'm not advocating Sweden's brand of socialism by any means, but with the utter failure of the "No Child Left Behind" program, and the worst disparity between the rich and the poor since the Industrial Age, we're clearly doing something wrong, and government funds could stand to be appropriated elsewhere; for example, a year ago state Senators voted themselves a raise of 20% in their salaries, which were already generously upwards of $50,000.
But back to my point (sort of) about that quote. It wasn't "Marxist" in nature, and even if it was, is that a bad thing? That doesn't mean she's a full-blown commie. Like someone said earlier, Marx advocated the separation between church and state; there is no such thing as a "pure" political philosophy, and the republican and democrat parties are bastard mutt political philosophies just as much as any other. I hate pointing out the obvious, but it's as if people intentionally dichotomize politics in an effort to create rifts between the left and the right. It's one thing to do it in Washington, where it's considered strategically sound, but on message boards with little to no power at all? Grow up.

Socialism always fails. Everyone knows that. Socialist ideas do not always fail. A government based solely upon Lennon, Marx, and other communist/socialist idealists will fail. They fail because they put trust into the idea that appointed leaders will not be greedy and screw the people over. In our modern world, there are socialist political parties that exist in democratic nations. These rarely appointed people simply adopt and amend laws and what not from a socialist's view. Take Spain for example. Either their current president or their last president came from a socialist party. In France, there is also a strong socialist party. There is still not a damn thing wrong with socialism you fucktard. I never said that anyone should convert their government to a pure socialist one.

I bet you do a lot of reading on Socialism and Marxism and Communism. Since you can't spell Lenin, and you don't know that there's a difference between Communism and Socialism.

Here's the plan disas, go read a book about your topic and come back and report.

That should've said don't work... oops.

There is no gigantic difference between socialism and communism. Its not like going from a totalarian state to a jingoistic state. Both have the same "main idea". Is that agreeable? The biggest diffrence is how they distribute resources. I am also aware that I can't spell. I am also aware that I cannot spell someon's name that i haven't formally studied.

Excuse me, but this is a one-sided discussion topic and i'll play the opposing side if i want to. They are not equally to blame, but more like 20/80. Show me the economic calculations where both sides are equally at fault. Holier than thou ranks higher than a peon of an AC, you really think your in a place to judge? Get a username and then you can try policing what everyone says, but right now you look pretty dumb pretending you have something important to say about any of us.

Well duh, if you haven't formally studied Lenin, then how would you even begin to say that you knew anything about him, Marx, communism, or socialism? You can't really, can you? No. Don't bother even trying to make a point. You aren't a socialist or a communist, I'm socialist I know the difference.

Hey, I think cutting spending and taxes and all would be a great idea if we didn’t live in reality. There's a time to be idealistic and a time to be pragmatic, and the fact is when you try to actively follow through on republican rhetoric like Bush did, you get a sky-high defecit. Or, in order to do whats best for the country, you have to go back on your word like Bush sr and do a democratic thing and raise taxes. The numbers you gave earlier are a great example of the problem of rhetoric. cutting taxes and spending is the only way to go and you don't care how or at what cost that goal is achieved. trying it for a few years gave us a $6 trillion defecit, but hey who cares, at least taxes were lowered right?
The republicans aren't honest, they take less money from me but then borrow from other countries and then the democrats just have to take my money away again to pay it off. The one who put me in debt is the one i have a problem with, because we as a country get charged interest on that debt and have to pay more. With Hillary’s plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts she's not saying she can spend your money better than you, but just that she can spend it better than Bush. I don't know your income bracket, but if you were making little enough than her plan to repeal them wouldnt affect you any more than the tax cuts. She is talking only to rich people here in her speech. Mentioning the common good doesn't make someone a marxist, she's just appealing to peoples' patriotism.

After all the douche juice rinses away... I'll play you all a very sad song.

This post may piss a few people off, but oh well. First off, I'm pro-Bush, so all the hippies out there are already up in arms. Second, I'm pro-taxes. It is impossible to fight a war and lower taxes. Wars cost money. This war was a necessary one. It took two terrible governments out of power and much more civilized governments were placed in power. They're not perfect yet, but don't forget it took our country almost 25 years to work all the kinks out. Don't forget the Articles of the Confederacy.

Anyway, don't worry about Hillary making Marxist remarks. Worry about that two-faced democratic presidential candidate (with enough chin to make well over two faces, by the way). He used to be a full-fledged supporter of Communism, though I'm sure he's said that his mind has changed because he like to tell people what they want to hear. Even as recently as 1993 he has met with the Communist leaders of Vietnam [link] and he is commemorated as one of the main influences to their victory. His protests (although he claims to not have been a major player in them... now, anyway) rallied much anti-war sentiment. This kills a war. If you want the war to end so badly, then stop bitching about it and show some support for your troops. Make a donation to the war effort so our boys don't have to go over there with used flak jackets donated by police because they don't meet law enforcement safety requirements. Pray that they finish their jobs quickly and can come home safely. We defeated Nazi Germany in WWII because the home front support was so strong. We defeated the Japanese for the same reason, and even more so because they attacked us first, so why do people bitch about us attacking terrorists and those who harbor them? Because it's now cool to hate the government.

And I swear, even though I'm in the Navy, if one person ever again calls me a baby killer... bad ju-ju.

They are not equally to blame, but more like 20/80.

I was going to jump in, but then saw that. You called out Wizard for buying the Republican rethoric, looks like you bought that Democratic rethoric hook, line, and sinker. Maybe you should read this thread and see how your coming off. I've liked alot of the opinions and topics you've brought up until this one Squee. If you need to have it spelled out that both sides are equally as bad, you're wearing blinders. The root of all evil is not Republicans, its politics in general, followed by ignorance that allows it to continue (Politics that is, not you). But, if you can't even concede that point, I see no point in continuing...

Um, surreal, I am just throwing a statement out there thats just as unfounded as saying they are equally to blame. That's the whole point. I know both sides have their faults, but that doesn't make them equal if one side has more faults than the other, and i firmly believe that one side has cost us a lot more than the other.

No gigantic difference between socialism and communism?

Are you MAD man?

Go pick up a copy of the communis manifesto and give that a read... do some comparative studies of several borderline socialist northern European countries and Communist Russia or China before its more recent reforms.

There is a HUGE difference between socialism and communism.