OT: US Pres election

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by lch

I still don't quite get Atrocities problems with the words "social", "socialism" and "socialist". Is that word taboo? Is America still living the cold war?

The right wing largely (as far as the party line) supports the concept of free market capitalism, and the idea that ultimately the best interests of corporations, in the form of long term profits, coincide with the best interests of individuals.

To them, there is no reason to look on the term "Socialism" in any light other than Marxist - that is, an "imperfect step on the way to -true- communism".

Personally, I think this is quite unfair, and forces a sort of semantic warfare where no one will find it possible to affect the status quo in America without entirely avoiding the term altogether, when referencing any vaguely Populist or Collectivist theories or plans which involve removing the influence of Exploitism from systems which directly impact the base quality of life of the individual.

[Azselendor]

ich, my comment on bush was in general. I'm sure he's an okay guy to know. I also think its an act.


as for the conservatives, apparently they are. Afterall, war is peace.

[thejeff]

Or possibly the right wing has just decided to upgrade the standard smear to socialist, since after 8 years of conservative rule, liberal doesn't sound quite as bad as they'd made it seem?

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Azselendor

He says maverick. I say oppurtunisic waffle.

This is one of the most frustrating problems in American politics. Politicians are not allowed to make mistakes, they are not allowed to admit they've made mistakes, and they're not allowed to learn from their mistakes. (They're freely allowed to criticize their opponents' mistakes, though.) If they ever change positions on any issue for any reason, they're accused of waffling or flip-flopping.

[Bwaha]

Well, now we have just raided Syria. Great, just what we need, another country angered at us. I was looking at the BBC news and just found this out. Lets see, do we have a mandate to invade anyone? I'm an isolationist and think all our adventures are going to destabilize what little peace left in the middle east. I think our executive branch let us down. If they had any sense they would of used the same tools that worked in WW2. After 911 king George should of gotten a formal declaration of war, sold war bonds, and had a general mobilization. We should have landed on Afghanistan with both boots. At that time we could have gone thru Pakistan and thus cut the talibans route of retreat. Now we have a festering sore that will take decades to solve, if ever. By the way I blame Jimmie Cater for all this mess. If we would have shown strength when Iran invaded our embassy, (An act of war) the Arabs wouldn't think we are a bunch of pantie waists. Sorry, I'm really ticked right now. Bwaha

[Tifone]

Atrocities,

If you come to visit me in Italy and suddenly (I sincerely hope not) your heart has a problem in my house, and if (I dunno, but let's suppose) you are poor and don't have any health insurance, you will be brought to the nearest hospital immediately. You could stay even a week there under observation of medics. If your heart problem is big, you would be carried by helicopter to Florence (where there are the best nearer hospitals to my hometown), and if necessary they would find a new heart for you as soon as possible, for an intensive surgical operation of replacement with half a dozen of medics.

All of this, completely free for you (except maybe minor tax expenses, the so called tickets), but payed by my (and Italian) taxes, which I would be glad to have payed DOUBLED if it could help to save your or s.o. else's life.

This is the kind of "socialism" you fear in modern states. (See "Sicko" by Michael Moore for further details )

Nothing to fear, really.

P.S. not that I say that my country is great, really, I'm probably going away as soon as I finish the University, but that's another story at all

[lch]

Well, I could understand all the agitation if the term would have been "communist" or "terrorist", but not "socialist" or much less "liberal". Though it seems to me now like "socialist" is a synonym for "communist" for conservatives in the US and "terrorist" has just been used way too often and incautiously in the past to hold any deeper meaning to me, much like "patriot" is just a buzz word without any ethically expressive meaning to me.

[Gandalf Parker]

Amazing. We have again crossed another nations border for our own purposes. "Oh we arent attacking YOU, we are just taking out this building because we didnt like what it was used for." Apparently to take out 8 people.

There is no way we would stand for Mexico or Canada or Russia or Britain or any of our other neighbors sending military troops into our territory to attack in force. Much less some country from the other side of the world.

[lch]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

The right wing largely (as far as the party line) supports the concept of free market capitalism

I see. I've been reading up on this and it seems that many US Americans believe in the power of free markets to govern themselves all the time. I don't know if those "laws" can be applied to the financial markets like that without any trouble as well, but anyway, I'm coming from where the social market economy is being practiced, which is a form of free market economy, but it might be too "social" to some. So I have another basis to this.

[Edratman]

The small things can be very significent.

On last nights evening NBC News, the reporter "embedded" (I hate that term) with the McCain campaign said the following:

"I am here in Defiance, Ohio, where John McCain held his latest political rally. The announced attendance was 6000 people, predominately comprised of school children bussed here for the event. McCain said .....".