democrat, republican, communist, or liberal

  • 122 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#51 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.

Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.

quiglythegreat

Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.

They're not different concepts. Communism is a form of socialism, a branch of it in sense.

Communism is based on a mutual ownership of property/capital - eliminating any sense of difference or advantage between people. In a sense, emphasis on the group rather than the individual. There are good and bad points to that, but I stand by our individual rights.

Socialism is when the government heavily regulates the economy. Communism is when there is no government.

In both socialism and communism, the economy or the means of production in the economy are owned by the people/state.  There are subtle differences, but communism is still an idealistic subset of socialism.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts

In both socialism and communism, the economy or the means of production in the economy are owned by the people/state. There are subtle differences, but communism is still an idealistic subset of socialism.

sonicare
You are overlooking again that there is absolutely no government in a communism.
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#53 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
Im usually conservative, but I cant accept how religiously conservative some republicans are, so I'd vote Democrat.
Avatar image for Shadow2k6
Shadow2k6

2283

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#54 Shadow2k6
Member since 2005 • 2283 Posts

When I registered to vote I registered as a Democrat so I guess you could say i'm a democrat.  I agree and disagree with views of both right and left but I hate liberals and conservatives.  Moderate FTW!

 

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#55 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

In both socialism and communism, the economy or the means of production in the economy are owned by the people/state. There are subtle differences, but communism is still an idealistic subset of socialism.

quiglythegreat

You are overlooking again that there is absolutely no government in a communism.

ideal communism is stateless, true, but again that is purely an unattainable ideal.  Not even marx himself could even describe it.  But the fundamental concepts of communism are very similar to socialism.

Avatar image for EboyLOL
EboyLOL

5358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 EboyLOL
Member since 2006 • 5358 Posts

libertarian. so im part of the right wing.

 

right wing = freedoms

left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you) 

Childish_Spot

The worst thing about this is that your serious...

Avatar image for tibicina
tibicina

927

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 tibicina
Member since 2005 • 927 Posts
I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex
I completely agree.
Avatar image for jakecufc8888
jakecufc8888

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58 jakecufc8888
Member since 2006 • 2381 Posts

liberal... yeah

 

Avatar image for jfkunrendered
jfkunrendered

8298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#59 jfkunrendered
Member since 2005 • 8298 Posts
Conservative/Republican FTW!!!
Avatar image for Axed54
Axed54

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Axed54
Member since 2006 • 2963 Posts
Just depends on what medication I'm on.
Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#61 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.

Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.

quiglythegreat

Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.

You do realise the foundation of communism is an industrial society and the revolution by the urban proletariat(and therefore why we have never seen a true "communist" revolution or government)? When Marx wrote about future communist states he envisioned Britain or Germany as the primary hotbeds of revolution not Russia.

Avatar image for MarioFanatic
MarioFanatic

6153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#62 MarioFanatic
Member since 2003 • 6153 Posts
republican
Avatar image for delol
delol

8793

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#63 delol
Member since 2005 • 8793 Posts
socialist or as you call it in the USA a damn liberal
Avatar image for hoola
hoola

6422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 hoola
Member since 2004 • 6422 Posts

libertarianism is what i like http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+libertarianism 

Avatar image for sutherland19
sutherland19

4016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 sutherland19
Member since 2004 • 4016 Posts

Marxist/Communist

Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#66 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
socialist/communist, probably 40/60. Why? because I am a part of the proletariat, and I don't like people other than me profiting from my labor. Pure democracy is essentially a "mob rule"
Avatar image for sutherland19
sutherland19

4016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 sutherland19
Member since 2004 • 4016 Posts
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.

Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.

blue_hazy_basic

Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.

You do realise the foundation of communism is an industrial society and the revolution by the urban proletariat(and therefore why we have never seen a true "communist" revolution or government)? When Marx wrote about future communist states he envisioned Britain or Germany as the primary hotbeds of revolution not Russia.

Yes it is based on an industrial society, but it was designed for a society back in the 1800-1900's, it is a bit outdated today, if it was to be implemented, changes would need to be made for it to be successful.

Avatar image for GeForce2187
GeForce2187

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 GeForce2187
Member since 2006 • 2963 Posts
Communist
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#69 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts
social monarchist with democratic tendencies...
Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts

socialist or as you call it in the USA a damn liberaldelol

Its so wierd here in the US. I moved here from the UK about 2 1/2 years ago and there, and most of Europe, even the hard right wingers want to be seen as upholding Liberal ideals even though they themselves are not Liberal. This includes right of the individual, free speech, equality of justice, no discrimination, a market economy and often the limitation of government and church.

 

Here in the US Liberal is used like a swear word and a boogey phrase "Vote Dem and the Liberals will take control!" Its so bizarre for me, especially when its the right over here at the minute that are big government, big spenders and removing many personal freedoms.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts

Yes it is based on an industrial society, but it was designed for a society back in the 1800-1900's, it is a bit outdated today, if it was to be implemented, changes would need to be made for it to be successful.

sutherland19

I completely agree, I never said otherwise.

Avatar image for yoshi-lnex
yoshi-lnex

5442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 yoshi-lnex
Member since 2007 • 5442 Posts

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.sonicare

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#73 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
as long as there is a big game between the middle class and the rich, political interests of the middle class almost never will be completely met. It is like in the USA, special interest groups rule this country. Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.
Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

ive never really understood the reasoning underpinning the argument that stores like wal mart are bad for the economy because they cause a lot of small "mom n pop" businesses to close. the reason for that is they are providing goods cheaper than those stores, i.e., creating an efficiency in the market. the money people save by buying products more cheaply go to other sectors of the economy, and thus resources are allocated more efficiently. someone explain to me how it is good for the economy for the consumer to pay more for a gallon of milk or a package of tennis balls, or whatever else. how is it good for the economy to keep an inefficient "independent" business afloat?
Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]as long as there is a big game between the middle class and the rich, political interests of the middle class almost never will be completely met. It is like in the USA, special interest groups rule this country. Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.

the merits of that statement aside, name some examples where communism has been practiced correctly.
Avatar image for Greatgone12
Greatgone12

25469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 Greatgone12
Member since 2005 • 25469 Posts
Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.muscleserge
Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#77 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.Greatgone12
Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

 

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

Too much bickering and arguing, too much compromising and scheming and all that BS.  Have a king, give him a cabinet that represents all the various groups/interests/opinions, 50 or so people in all probably, have entire departments working for them, and bring all the information etc to the King, and he would have the final say.  No arguing for months on end.  Democracies are generally speaking, very inefficent forms of government.  Some representation is desirable, if only to make the people feel secure  in believing their interests are being represented. 

Avatar image for Greatgone12
Greatgone12

25469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Greatgone12
Member since 2005 • 25469 Posts
[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.eo12601
Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

Three relatively human traits.
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#79 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts
[QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.Greatgone12
Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

Three relatively human traits.

ok...well one could argue that no system is ever implemented as it should be, because of those traits.  And you are wrong sir.  There are plenty of monarchs in history who wielded absolute power but still managed to be relatively good rulers.
Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.eo12601

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#81 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts
None of the above, I don't limit myself to political ideologies.
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#82 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts
[QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.ROLFCHANK

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

 

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no.  It has been implented incorrectly.  That is the only pattern.  Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.
Avatar image for yoshi-lnex
yoshi-lnex

5442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 yoshi-lnex
Member since 2007 • 5442 Posts
[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.ROLFCHANK

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

ive never really understood the reasoning underpinning the argument that stores like wal mart are bad for the economy because they cause a lot of small "mom n pop" businesses to close. the reason for that is they are providing goods cheaper than those stores, i.e., creating an efficiency in the market. the money people save by buying products more cheaply go to other sectors of the economy, and thus resources are allocated more efficiently. someone explain to me how it is good for the economy for the consumer to pay more for a gallon of milk or a package of tennis balls, or whatever else. how is it good for the economy to keep an inefficient "independent" business afloat?

large companys like wall mart destoy many many jobs and do employ enough people to even come close to compensation, and the people that they do employ are often paid very low wages, which means that less money will go into homes, people's nessesitys and luxurys, quality of life drops in the city becouse the economy suffers, the only people that benifit are those who own wallmart. They are often big on buying goods from over seas or producing them themselfs in sweat shops which are basically the equivalency of slave labor, and then put their goods on sale below what they paid for them so that other companys cannot compete, a businesses are destroyed.
Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.eo12601

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no. It has been implented incorrectly. That is the only pattern. Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.

right, what i'm saying is it is pretty reasonable to infer from its track record that communism pretty much does not work, as it gets hijacked by tyrants who then go on to oppress people, every single time.
Avatar image for yoshi-lnex
yoshi-lnex

5442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 yoshi-lnex
Member since 2007 • 5442 Posts
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.Greatgone12
Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

If you believe that I suggest you look at japan immediatly following ww2, probably the best example of a truely successful communism.
Avatar image for Greatgone12
Greatgone12

25469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 Greatgone12
Member since 2005 • 25469 Posts

Lenin was the closest to doing Communism right, but he died, and then we had Stalin.

Essentially, only Marx, because he was such an expert in the concept, is the only person who can truly accomplish creating a Communist empire. 

Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

ive never really understood the reasoning underpinning the argument that stores like wal mart are bad for the economy because they cause a lot of small "mom n pop" businesses to close. the reason for that is they are providing goods cheaper than those stores, i.e., creating an efficiency in the market. the money people save by buying products more cheaply go to other sectors of the economy, and thus resources are allocated more efficiently. someone explain to me how it is good for the economy for the consumer to pay more for a gallon of milk or a package of tennis balls, or whatever else. how is it good for the economy to keep an inefficient "independent" business afloat?

large companys like wall mart destoy many many jobs and do employ enough people to even come close to compensation, and the people that they do employ are often paid very low wages, which means that less money will go into homes, people's nessesitys and luxurys, quality of life drops in the city becouse the economy suffers, the only people that benifit are those who own wallmart. They are often big on buying goods from over seas or producing them themselfs in sweat shops which are basically the equivalency of slave labor, and then put their goods on sale below what they paid for them so that other companys cannot compete, a businesses are destroyed.

that reasoning suggests that people are jumping ship from jobs where they are paid well to work at wal mart, which pays crap. people who work at wal mart likely work there because they have to. if they didn't work there, they'd be working somewhere else for minimum wage. you say that the only people who benefit from what wal mart does are the owners, but i'd argue the consumers benefit quite a bit from being able to buy stuff for less money. you are only addressing one side of the argument. small businesses may have to close because of wal mart, but big deal. they are operating inefficiently and the money should go elsewhere to create jobs in a different sector of the economy. you might as well be arguing that we shouldn't rely on computers or machines too much because they are replacing workers.
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#88 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts
[QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.ROLFCHANK

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

 

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no. It has been implented incorrectly. That is the only pattern. Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.

right, what i'm saying is it is pretty reasonable to infer from its track record that communism pretty much does not work, as it gets hijacked by tyrants who then go on to oppress people, every single time.

a capitalist democracy can be hijacked as well.  Look at what Napoleon did.  Look at what happened to the Roman Republic.  Look at what happened in Germany and Italy.
Avatar image for DouglasBuffone
DouglasBuffone

9421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

#89 DouglasBuffone
Member since 2004 • 9421 Posts
i am a reagan republican
Avatar image for hair001
hair001

1202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 hair001
Member since 2005 • 1202 Posts
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

ive never really understood the reasoning underpinning the argument that stores like wal mart are bad for the economy because they cause a lot of small "mom n pop" businesses to close. the reason for that is they are providing goods cheaper than those stores, i.e., creating an efficiency in the market. the money people save by buying products more cheaply go to other sectors of the economy, and thus resources are allocated more efficiently. someone explain to me how it is good for the economy for the consumer to pay more for a gallon of milk or a package of tennis balls, or whatever else. how is it good for the economy to keep an inefficient "independent" business afloat?

large companys like wall mart destoy many many jobs and do employ enough people to even come close to compensation, and the people that they do employ are often paid very low wages, which means that less money will go into homes, people's nessesitys and luxurys, quality of life drops in the city becouse the economy suffers, the only people that benifit are those who own wallmart. They are often big on buying goods from over seas or producing them themselfs in sweat shops which are basically the equivalency of slave labor, and then put their goods on sale below what they paid for them so that other companys cannot compete, a businesses are destroyed.

It's true that something like Wal Mart puts its competitors out of business, but you've jumped from that to saying that this reduces the number of jobs for people. This is not the case. Using Wal Mart as the example, it is sucessful due to lower prices. The consumer therefore spend less money, on say their food than they would do otherwise, leaving them with more money. With this they then spend more on other things, like televisions. So the demand for elctronics goes up so do the jobs available in this sector. So the local store worker who lost their job to Wal Mart now works for Sony. Now it dosn't work as quickly and directly as this in the real world but the model pulls through. In decades of capitalism many jobs have been lost yet unemployment hasn't risen due to this.
Avatar image for UrbanSpartan125
UrbanSpartan125

3684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#91 UrbanSpartan125
Member since 2006 • 3684 Posts
republican, conservative
Avatar image for deactivated-583e5f64e0a7e
deactivated-583e5f64e0a7e

8419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#92 deactivated-583e5f64e0a7e
Member since 2003 • 8419 Posts
Moderate, although I tend to fall right when pushed.
Avatar image for Gamezilla57
Gamezilla57

2486

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#93 Gamezilla57
Member since 2005 • 2486 Posts
I'm Conservative, but most of you already know that.  :D
Avatar image for ROLFCHANK
ROLFCHANK

1085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 ROLFCHANK
Member since 2006 • 1085 Posts
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.eo12601

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no. It has been implented incorrectly. That is the only pattern. Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.

right, what i'm saying is it is pretty reasonable to infer from its track record that communism pretty much does not work, as it gets hijacked by tyrants who then go on to oppress people, every single time.

a capitalist democracy can be hijacked as well. Look at what Napoleon did. Look at what happened to the Roman Republic. Look at what happened in Germany and Italy.

"can be" is not the same as "always is". in other words, capitalist democracies (or democratic republics) have very far from a 100% failure rate (or "hijack" rate, if you will), as is the case with communism. capitalism, free markets, and democracy win out in a cost-benefit analysis here.
Avatar image for eo12601
eo12601

4814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#95 eo12601
Member since 2003 • 4814 Posts
[QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.ROLFCHANK

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

 

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no. It has been implented incorrectly. That is the only pattern. Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.

right, what i'm saying is it is pretty reasonable to infer from its track record that communism pretty much does not work, as it gets hijacked by tyrants who then go on to oppress people, every single time.

a capitalist democracy can be hijacked as well. Look at what Napoleon did. Look at what happened to the Roman Republic. Look at what happened in Germany and Italy.

"can be" is not the same as "always is". in other words, capitalist democracies (or democratic republics) have very far from a 100% failure rate (or "hijack" rate, if you will), as is the case with communism. capitalism, free markets, and democracy win out in a cost-benefit analysis here.

  The U.S.S.R did not start out the way it turned out when Lenin was in power.  The reason why communism ends up like that is that there is one head honcho who leads the revolution, ie Castro, Mao, etc, and instead of dividing up power he takes it for himself.  The same could easily happen if there was a "democratic revolution." 
Avatar image for jfkunrendered
jfkunrendered

8298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#96 jfkunrendered
Member since 2005 • 8298 Posts
Didnt Marx say it was necessary to kill people to bring communism in? If you guys say no, i`ll have to go back and do my research and then post my findings. But thats whay I remember.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#97 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex

I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.

There are a few problems with providing greater economic freedom, namely, only the rich benefit. When companies are allowed to expand uncontrolled (simple example being wall mart) business is destroyed, jobs are lost, the economy suffers, and all those who are not the extremely rich suffer, their rights are lost, and economic conservatives seem generally blind to this. "Paris Hilton tax cuts" in which the rich are able to pass their vast fortune to their children assure that for generations to come their family will not have to create any benefit in society, only further abuse those who do not share their their undeserved wealth, not only does this assure a lack of productivity in the future of owned companies and owner (because they are not the innovators that produced this vast fortune), but it stops future inventors, innovators or entrepreneurs from competing in the market, because small business owners cannot compete against companies that dwarf them in finances, and yet, fiscal cons again ignore this. College and health care are still not free within this country while every other developed country in the world, despite there being a direct relationship between economic prosperity and the health and education of the population, and yet this is ignored by fiscal conservatives. This only adds to the problem of the severe poverty that exists within this country, becouse people who are within poverty have an incredibly difficult time of advancing in socioty and are basically destined to live within poverty, yet fiscal conservatives again ignore this.

I'm convincedthat fiscal and social cons are not only holding this country back from greater prosperity, are going to lead to further economic despotism within socioty and restricted social freedoms, we falling behind both socially and economically, and this will lead to the quickening of the U.S. falling as the lone superpower.

Your making some pretty bold assumptions in your reasoning.  You are mixing capitalism/free enterprise with far right republican values.  They are not the same at all. Most liberals in this country are also for capitalism and free markets.  Secondly, you assume that any person who accumulates wealth did so undeservingly or underhanded.  Thirdly, free markets stimulate innovation and entrepreneurs. 

Capitalistic societies can support the welfare of their citizens.  They can promote social responsibility and programs that serve the disadvantaged - medicaid, welfare, etc.  Taxes also promote a mild form of redistribution of wealth as they support the prementioned programs.  Our current system is far from ideal, but also far from disaster.  I'm not crazy about the growing corporate power in this country either.  It happened 100 years ago, and it took Teddy Roosevelt to break up the monopolies / "robber barons" of this country and get the system back on track.

Just like socialism and communism, capitalism and free markets are an ideal.  I believe that some government regulation to assure fair practices is mandatory and needs to be better implemented.  What you are preaching against is more "republican values" than against democracy and capitalism.  Communism has ruined many nations that have tried to implement it.  I just wish that people would be a little more wise to the dangers it poses.  It's one thing to have some socialization of certain aspects of society - that's reasonable, but much different than becoming a socialist or communist state.

Avatar image for Media_geek20
Media_geek20

6491

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#98 Media_geek20
Member since 2006 • 6491 Posts
There's more than four choices on the political spectrum...and liberal isn't a political party. :?
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#99 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="eo12601"]

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="muscleserge"]Communism should be an obvious choice, when it is practiced correctly, it is the best form of government.eo12601

Yeah, but, in practice, with humans, it can't work. At all.

Your argument is moot. It hasn't worked because its been implemented poorly and by authoritarian, corrupt, and opressive regimes.

 

Taking all that into account, a proper monarcy > all other political systems.

his argument is moot? you just illustrated his point in saying that every time "communism" has been adopted, it has gone into the hands of corrupt dictators. you notice a pattern there?

no. It has been implented incorrectly. That is the only pattern. Communism doesn't embrace the idea of a dictator.

right, what i'm saying is it is pretty reasonable to infer from its track record that communism pretty much does not work, as it gets hijacked by tyrants who then go on to oppress people, every single time.

a capitalist democracy can be hijacked as well. Look at what Napoleon did. Look at what happened to the Roman Republic. Look at what happened in Germany and Italy.

"can be" is not the same as "always is". in other words, capitalist democracies (or democratic republics) have very far from a 100% failure rate (or "hijack" rate, if you will), as is the case with communism. capitalism, free markets, and democracy win out in a cost-benefit analysis here.

  The U.S.S.R did not start out the way it turned out when Lenin was in power.  The reason why communism ends up like that is that there is one head honcho who leads the revolution, ie Castro, Mao, etc, and instead of dividing up power he takes it for himself.  The same could easily happen if there was a "democratic revolution." 

Like the american revolution?

Avatar image for bacon_is_sweet
bacon_is_sweet

3112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 bacon_is_sweet
Member since 2006 • 3112 Posts
I'm republican, but not the far right.  I believe in capitalism and free market, but a little socialism thrown into the mix to prevent such things as monopolies.