[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by heretic
nah, not hiding, just waiting for his intelligence level to rise a bit before debating.

Some would say that amounts to the same thing.

So some would say. Myself, I'm keeping my mouth shut...except when it isn't.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega

Heretic: Western Capitalism in my opinion is a plague that needs to be removed. Well, more like a good idea turned plague. I just sure as hell don't approve of the methods they're using.

Capitalism promotes development, education and progression technology wise. Granted it's for the wrong reasons (greed). Socialism is not bad, however, getting people to work for "the common good" is not an easy task, and has only been enforced through fear or tyrrany. why? because people are independant as a species. Capitalism works, it promotes human tech evolution, all the while allowing us to mantain our independance, doing what we want, and getting paid what we are worth.

anarchy is the worst type of society. stagnation.

communism is basically the same as socialism. if Tom Daschle ever becomes president, you'll see just what a communist state is. everyone supports each other, even ones that won't work for society at all. everyone paid the same, everyone pays to the government, who controls food and other items. not a good idea.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


Some would say that amounts to the same thing.

 Myself, I'm keeping my mouth shut...

Mind your head doesn't explode from the effort.

[diamondgeezer]

I;m not good with politics - us BSc types like to leave all that to the BA lads. However, I like money and believe that I should have as much as possible - what does that make me, politics wise?

[heretic]

devout capitalist

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by heretic
communism is basically the same as socialism. if Tom Daschle ever becomes president, you'll see just what a communist state is. everyone supports each other, even ones that won't work for society at all. everyone paid the same, everyone pays to the government, who controls food and other items. not a good idea.

I never understood why Republicans always try to brand us Democrats as closet socialists. I'm a lawyer, and so is my father and he works for the World Bank helping develop third world countries. We're both Dems and we both dislike communism because it's a failed system that goes against human nature. We're both naturalized American citizens who immigrated to America exactly because of capitalism's opportunities here in the USA. So why do people keep branding us as closet socialists just because we're Democrats?

And here I was thinking the people here at HLP were smarter than to judge people by their sterotypes...

[diamondgeezer]

Nah, sterotyping is far more fun. Unfair, perhaps, but fun

[Stryke 9]

Who the hell calls Democrats closet socialists? They're Republicans who smile more and don't outright TELL you what unpleasant things they wanna do to you and everyone else.

It's kinda funny seeing the "democrats" and "republicans" have at each other, really. The two parties are really either side of the same coin, with no coherent trend to their doctrines other than that they disagree, and that in an emergency, such as a rise in power by any second group, they'll band together out of expediancy and destroy the intruder. Essentially, it's a setup straight out of 1984. So long as they keep fighting, they can distract from everything else they're doing, and the world is theirs. If only the US and USSR had entered such a conscious relationship.

[vyper]

I still think its all about a bad curry. Then again, I've been playing DS9: The Fallen, from 9am today until about fifteen minutes ago.

And as for that last post:
Democrats, Socialists, they all wind up the same colour in the end... Dollar Green.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


I never understood why Republicans always try to brand us Democrats as closet socialists. I'm a lawyer, and so is my father and he works for the World Bank helping develop third world countries. We're both Dems and we both dislike communism because it's a failed system that goes against human nature. We're both naturalized American citizens who immigrated to America exactly because of capitalism's opportunities here in the USA. So why do people keep branding us as closet socialists just because we're Democrats?

And here I was thinking the people here at HLP were smarter than to judge people by their sterotypes...

Where did I say democrats in general? I said Daschle. he is sooooo far to the left wing he's almost there.

I am not an Republican, I'm a moderate. who's sterotyping?

[Stryke 9]

vyper: it depends on the socialist. For some, it's just another name, for some, it's a tepid form of communism, partially independent of money.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by heretic
Where did I say democrats in general? I said Daschle. he is sooooo far to the left wing he's almost there.

Yeah. I really believe that:

1) Any state would elect a near-Communist Senator. Even those pissy East Coast Liberal ones.

2) That he'd be the Senate Democrat Majority Leader. I have reason to believe that a party of broad leftism would choose the most hard-left of its members to represent it.

Unless he's hiding his Communism. In which case, you wouldn't know.

[heretic]

I'm just referring to asinine comments made by him. Give me time and I'll copy them for you.

[CP5670]

I would have posted this to the other thread but since it was closed, I will just put it here: the Nobel prize commitee is a bunch of infernal idiots anyway, because there is no mathematics prize, and instead they have crap things like peace and literature. bah!

[Stryke 9]

Kellan: I'm sure they would. The distinction is between the old-guard fascist "communists" who, as their first act in an official capacity, would decimate the populace, suppress the newspaper, and form a secret police force, and the anarchists, whose first official act would be to burn down the statehouse and sign a bill subsidizing free marijuana for every citizen under 40. You know what side I'm on, but we're a dying breed, and the quasinazis pretty much have the run of everything in American politics.

No word commonly used in politics has one, definite meaning. Any given word you can find in a filibuster can mean two completely opposed things, or nothing at all. Generally, it's the latter.


And isn't the Peace Prize supposed to go to the inventor of the new deadliest weapon on Earth, as usual?

[Kellan]

Why would moderate Democrats knowingly elect someone who is hard-left? He wouldn't exactly be representative of their interests.

As for the peace prize, I see it as a subtle slap in the face for the current administration. It expresses sympathy for America and praises those characteristics that the rest of the world would like to see the US exhibit more often. There's certainly a counterpoint between Carter not sending a soldier to war, and Bush's current position.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Kellan
Why would moderate Democrats knowingly elect someone who is hard-left? He wouldn't exactly be representative of their interests.

Exactly right. It was only after Clinton dragged the Democratic Party kicking and screaming into the center that the Dems finally managed to get a two term-president into office since FDR.

Originally posted by Kellan
As for the peace prize, I see it as a subtle slap in the face for the current administration. It expresses sympathy for America and praises those characteristics that the rest of the world would like to see the US exhibit more often. There's certainly a counterpoint between Carter not sending a soldier to war, and Bush's current position.

I never thought of it this way! Hey, anything that snubs the Shrub so publicly is a good thing in my book!

[Knight Templar]

I never thought of it this way!  Hey, anything that snubs the Shrub so publicly is a good thing in my book!

As for the peace prize, I see it as a subtle slap in the face for the current administration. It expresses sympathy for America and praises those characteristics that the rest of the world would like to see the US exhibit more often. There's certainly a counterpoint between Carter not sending a soldier to war, and Bush's current position.

I never thought of it that way..