Print

[gronne]

QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 14 2004, 03:14 AM)

No, socialism/communism is not leftwing or "liberal", it is statism. There are 4 main political ideologies (conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and statism (you)) not two (conservative/liberal). Fascism, just like socialism/communism, is also statism, because its focus is big government (although they might differ in respect to their ideology, when they have been applied in reality, they are the same, BIG GOVERNMENT). So again you are a Nazi. Hitler (also the reason I failed to mention his economy was because it was implied, i.e. socialist) hated the communists, not the socialists, after all the acronym Nazi stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Socialism and Fascism are the same, in both, the public are tools of the government (and everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others , you might want to read Animal Farm sometime).

I don't need to read animal farm as I already have, a pretty good book should I mention, eventhough it has nothing to do with democratic socialism. Communism/socialism is definitely not considered liberal as in politically liberal, and I've never stated otherwise.

I bet you can place communism/socialism differently in various systems. Since you only have two big parties in USA I suppose you don't use a left/rightwing-scale like we do. Sure socialism is statism, but it's also extreme left. Socialism is left in any country, you know. I very well know nazi is a short for national socialism, as I wrote it in an earlier post, however I don't get how you can accuse a socialist for being a nazi, when nazi's are the ones I hate THE VERY most. I hate them even more than more moderate right-wingers(regular capitalists). I don't know where you're going when you're accusing me of being a nazi, but you're barking at the wrong tree my friend, comprade? It's kind of funny how you really think socialists have anything in common with nazi's. We have increased fights between socialists and nazi's in Sweden, because the nazi's fight immigrants. None of the sides have anything in common. The nazi's don't even seem to know what they believe in, they only hate immigrants.


ADD: I will take Sweden as an example of our left/rightwing-scale. Since we have 7 big parties we must use that kind of scale, eventhough other things should be taken in consideration. From the left to the right: VänsterPartiet(communists), socialdemokraterna(social democrats), Miljöpartiet(social democrats focusing on the environment), Centerpartiet(liberals), Kristdemokraterna(liberals with christian/conservative values), Folkpartiet(liberals) and Moderaterna(conservatives/capitalists with liberal views). So our system might appear weird to you where our conservatives are liberal.

[gronne]

QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 14 2004, 03:25 AM)

That is called a progressive tax, as income increases your tax rate increases, which is a pretty bad thing considering taxes are harmful to the economy because they are leakages, and they cause consumers to save (to prepare for the next round of taxes) instead of purchasing (inputting) goods or services. Although one can argue that the government purchases enough goods and services (i.e., public works programs, etc.) through taxes that they are able to counterbalance that effect, thus bringing the market back in the equilibrium. In reality, the market will never reach full potential because the consumers are discouraged for purchasing goods and services as a result of high taxes, and thus are unwilling to input back into the economy. Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government.

It's not progressive in the way that it exactly differs in percentage. Low incomers pay 33%(in reality it's a lot more, but that's if you take other facts in consideration), high incomers pay 65% in tax(me), and really wealthy pay "wealth"-tax which is directly progressive.

QUOTE

Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government.

Not in reality either. From an economic pov, whatever, not the moral pov that is the only thing that matters. USSR (which was sick, undemocratic communism) had elements that resembled a lot to the nazis, more than what communism really stands for. USSR was outspokenly anti-semitic, and killed people who had a different pov. Democratic socialism doesn't resemble much to that. I think it's very good to hear others thoughts, otherwise it's status-quo. There are intelligent capitalists as well, they only lack moral.

[Baner]

QUOTE

Baner: During the debates Bush rhetorically asked if USA should let african nations decide whether USA should go to war or not. Well, why not? USA had no more reason to attack Iraq than any other nation. If USA was attacked by Iraq, I could at least understand you would want to attack, but as we all know Iraq has never attacked USA. And if you seriously think we shouldn't try to interfere, then I hope you pay our nations for what it costs in terms of asylum seekers and so on. Many iraqies now want Saddam back in power, I guess they don't mention that too often in Fox. And when you have forced the iraqies to democracy, they will elect a totalitarian leader anyway. The Bush administration obviously didn't think that far. And what is a well-developed country? A country that automatically knows better, especially running other countries? You don't understand muslims, so why force them upon something they most likely don't want?

Hmm...
Ok, so we have the UN right? and their suppose to tell nations when they can and can't go to wars. They're also suppose to keep nations in-line by placing sanctions on them, which, when the nations don't comply are suppose to use force to put them in-line, considering everything else they've done didn't work. So with Iraqs outstanding number of sanctions (17 if I remember), the UN were suppose to do something about it right? When the USA first went to war with Iraq, the UN agreed (the UN being a coalition of many nations). So when the UN backed down from doing its duty, the US (and the rest of the nations that createdthe coalition at the bigining of the war) picked up its slack. So Americas reason for attacking Iraq was to do the Un duty tht they were to scared to do. Sure, Iraq never attacked the USA, but they did break international laws, but for some reason, you think its ok to do that. The Iraqi's didn't vote for Saddam in the first place (unless I'm wrong), the US placed him in power, this discussion happened in another thread.
I got a question for you Gronne, if I murdered a person, should I go to jail?
How about Hundreds of thousands of people?
Would it be ok if I was a tyrant, and my reason for killing these people was because they spoke out against me, ohh wait... I mean, because they are traitors?

A well developed country, is a country with the ability to provide the modern nessicities for people to live good lives (running water, electricity, ample food), a country that can provide protection to its people (standing army, working police fire and perimedic forces), one that can give people the right to live properous lives, aslong as they have the initiative.
You're right, I don't know muslims, but you don't seem to know people. Everyone does't want the same thing. I'm a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't mean what I want, is what every other Roman Catholic wants.