|
|
|
Dear guest,
Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
|
 |
|

12-19-2007, 06:51 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordlactose
australia... used laws to prevent the mentaly ill and retarded from reproducing.
|
Can you quote that legislation for me please?
I suspect you are making things up.
|

12-23-2007, 12:59 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 102
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMike
LordLactose:
Joe McCarthy back from the grave?
Can you be more specific? A generalized commie-phobia? This country has been there and done that in the early 1950's. What specifically are you talking about with Obama's or Clinton's positions on issues? Give us a few examples of what you are calling socialism.
|
Want to see examples of socialism with hilary :
Why hilary clinton?
|

12-23-2007, 01:17 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 102
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMike
At least take the Ron Paul ad off of your signature. What you are saying does not represent Ron Paul.
I''ll put you on ignore and give others an opportunity.
|
No it does not. He is saying he supports Paul. That does not mean that everything he says is representative of what Paul believes in.
|

12-23-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 102
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellboilswithlaughter
I'm sorry to be inflammatory. Really all I'm trying to say is that good and talented people can come from, and are part of, welfare families. I suppose I may be a bit socialist in the respect that I am willing to help a man who shows few signs of helping himself, but only a bit, and thats what they get.
I feel its more a humanitarian conscience that allows this, more than the desire for a socialist government. Don't forget, detrimental ignorance breeds in wealthy families as well.
|
Yes they do. So let them get a job a work instead of getting money taken from others.
|

12-23-2007, 02:06 AM
|
 |
Viscount
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,492
Location: Potchefstroom, South Africa
Country:
|
|
|
Sorry. but who are you going to give these children to that you are taking away? Thee are already not enough peoiple to take all the children. Are you going to keep then instutionlised? Let them live in Children's homes? Every piece of research has proven it is better for a child to live in a family than in a home. children form homes have a much much much harder time to make it. Therefor should we not rather help that poor family than take the children away, give them a poorer upbringing, and then letting them go, maybe to start the whole cycle again?
AH
PS. Comming from a country where there are a lot of poor and people suffer from desease (HIV related), I was insulted and shocked by his remark, but don't ban him. I love guys likethis. They show to peole on the fence how bad the other side is.
AH
__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”
|

03-31-2008, 04:16 AM
|
|
Conscript
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4
|
|
|
We know 4 very different and opposing Socialisms:
We know 4 very different and opposing Socialisms:
To avoid misunderstandings we use the term 'Socialism' no longer alone, but always together with an adjective. - As superordinate terms we use 'Democratic Socialisms' and 'Non-democratic Socialisms' (in the plural). 'Democratic Socialisms' = 'Social-democratic Socialisms' and 'Ecological (or Environmental or Green) Socialisms'. - 'Non-democratic Socialisms' = 'Communistic Socialisms' and 'Anarchistic Socialisms'.
1. Social-democratic Socialisms (normally in the plural)
Social-democracy is the name for an international democratic socialist movement which has a vision of a fair and human social order in a strong state based on just distribution of resources and employment, sustainable economic and ecological growth, equality of women and men, and non-violent relationships. This vision is not an ethereal dream, but is instead a realistic goal for daily political work. Social-democrats do not refer to > Marxism, and "Socialist" parties in "Latin" countries are usually social-democratic parties. The “Socialist International” is social-democratic, too.
2. Environmental Socialisms (normally in the plural)
The term "Environmentalism" designates a political attitude of respect for environment and is also used for democratic political movements that are known by the name "Greens". "Sustainable Development" occupies the center of their daily political action. This theory has ecological, economic and social goals. Therefore “Greens" normally are socialist parties. In Western Europe Marxists often join a Green party.
3. Communist Socialisms (normally in the plural)
The ideal of Communism is a “classless society” in which social differences are waived and produced goods belong to the community. This goal presumes the abolishment of the "private property of the means of production" and its "socialization", or as some will say, "nationalization". Communist parties often see no other possibility than to struggle against a dictatorship (and for their revolution) by force of arms (e. g. Nepal, Philippines …). We also know numerous authoritarian communist parties. There are monopolies of a communist party in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam, and a communist government has been installed in Moldavia. In other countries communist parties (> Marxist branch) are non-violent and democratic.
- Marxist Communism is a philosophical, economic and social theory. The excrescences of "Capitalism" - according to Marx and Engels - are the cause for the "class war". They demand the seizure of power by "revolution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat". The adherents of Marxism are called "Marxists".
- Leninist Communism is a branch of Marxism developed by Lenin, first dictator of the former Soviet Union; it refers to theory and practice of the use of power. Leninism served Stalin to justify his repression.
- Stalinist Communism spreads Stalin’s ideas and practices as second dictator of the Soviet Union. The adherents of Stalinism are called "Stalinists".
- Maoist Communism was developed by Mao, first dictator of the People's Republic of China. It is based on the “fathers” of Communism - Marx and Lenin. The fact that Maoism appoints "fathers" corresponds mainly to Chinese thinking and culture. For a social-democrat it isn’t necessary to follow “fathers” and their ideologies. He or she trusts the reason of each party member.
4. Anarchist Socialisms (normally in the plural)
The aim of Anarchism is the destruction of the state. Anarchism rejects hierarchies. On the ruins of the state, the Anarchists intend to build a new society in which individuals cooperate freely and have the same rights. In an anarchist society party structures aren’t necessary. Anarchists can be non-violent (e. g. the Amish in the USA) or very violent (e. g. arson attacks in the suburbs of France 2005).
© Rolf Oberhaensli Lucerne
|

03-31-2008, 06:51 AM
|
 |
Mercenary
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 363
Country:
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordlactose
Let me ask you democrats a question seeing you think you know everything. I am confused I need you to explain this to me I need help.
Why is it you continue to fly out and vote for people like the clintons and obama. When they persist on raising welfare so the working class has to loose more and more to their pay checks to high taxes?
Why is it you continue to allow the sludge in the projects to sit around and do nothing for our country? Just raise their welfare checks so they don't contribute and the working class has to pay for it.
How come you haven't seen what socialism did to the soviet union, chile, cuba, and other dysfunctional countries. How come people like me who think socialism doesn't work are wrong?
Help me help me
|
there is few that you speak of that play the welfare game they are lazy and dont want to work all they want to do is feed off of the working class, however these ones are the minority the majority of the people really do need help and obamas plans are great they can help the poor which is how it should be . Im a firm believer though that the poor should be helped to a position where they can help the same system that helped them and not sponge off that system all their lives, only if they are cripple and can do no work should we feed and house people, other than that we should help the poor to help themselves
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
A vBSkinworks Design
 |
|