Pierre the Great Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Socialist senator makes US history http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm Bernie's right on how democratic socialism in this country has been labeled totalitarian communism. Which is flat out wrong. And considering I hear people on the street talk about socialists as communists, I rightly point out to them that the US main ally has called himself a 'democratic socialist', Che Guevara a 'freedom fighter', and Cuba's Health Care system 'one of the best health care systems in the world given the lack of money due to the embargo'. That would be Tony Blair. Another sad state of the democrats is that they don't adopt European socialist ideas permanently and join socialist international and truly become something and STAND for something. Its quite sad really when you look at the party its greatest leader ever FDR was in all tense and purposes a social democrat and yet the party refuses to take up the mantle. But I think in fact I know the time is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Thats awesome... Didnt know he was a congresman either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 yup he was a congressman for years. To me he's what the democratic party should stand for but thats probably not going to happen in my life time and I'm only 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 socialism is great if you want everyone to be equally poor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 socialism is great if you want everyone to be equally poor Or equally rich (glass half full) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 in all tense and purposes I'm sorry but I laugh my ass off every time I see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 bernie got elected 2 months ago... old news. Gotta love him though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Carlson Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) socialism would never work. on paper its great but human nature dooms it to fail. Edited January 4, 2007 by Killer Carlson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 he's going to be a very lonely man in the senate... a 'voice in the wilderness' if you will... i'm not pro or anti socialist... it's a viewpoint that has its strengths and weaknesses like any other... we'll see what happens... to tell you the truth, i expect that this will be a bump of sorts on the american political landscape... GO :hlogo: GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 he's going to be a very lonely man in the senate... a 'voice in the wilderness' if you will... i'm not pro or anti socialist... it's a viewpoint that has its strengths and weaknesses like any other... we'll see what happens... to tell you the truth, i expect that this will be a bump of sorts on the american political landscape... GO :hlogo: GO! nah probably won't. Might though bring back the FDR/LBJ types back into the party voice again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 nah probably won't. Might though bring back the FDR/LBJ types back into the party voice again. that's a BIG swing in the political climate... a VERY BIG swing... the FDR thing was made possible due to the depression... the LBJ thing was likely due to a fall-out from the Kennedy camelot / social revolution mood of the 60's... right now, the economy's nowhere near a depression nor is there a pervasive generational revolutionism in place at this time... it's a fairly socially stable time (within the national borders)... still... things are possible (though i don't believe likely in this case...) GO :hlogo: GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 that's a BIG swing in the political climate... a VERY BIG swing... the FDR thing was made possible due to the depression... the LBJ thing was likely due to a fall-out from the Kennedy camelot / social revolution mood of the 60's... right now, the economy's nowhere near a depression nor is there a pervasive generational revolutionism in place at this time... it's a fairly socially stable time (within the national borders)... still... things are possible (though i don't believe likely in this case...) GO :hlogo: GO! well it hasn't actually gone away. The religious right movement is on the decline. Heck down here all the new senators that got elected kept talking about 'social justice', its no secret that the DNC is going to push again for some sort of universal health care. Nobody is talking about it now but that will be the big draw/talked about on the democratic ticket for president in '08. Its in Edwards platform, Hillary came up with the last attempt in '94, and if you look at Obama's voting record and statements as a Illinois Senator he's for universal care as well. The Republicans are doomed because Bush is basically killing any shot of McCain winning with this 'surge' of troops called 'sacrifice'. McCain's idea is to send more troops. Since Our Dear Leader is doing that (and it will fail) McCain will have egg on his face since only 11% of the population support such a move. Who else is there for the Repubs Guilini? LOL LOL LOL he's actually a republican since he supports gay rights, abortion (republicans were suppose to stand for government out of your lives and freedom of things but alas they're not that anymore), Romney? He's Mormon, and already has flipped flopped on gays, abortion. (was originally for that until 2 weeks ago) Brownback? LOL Please that guy is what George Bush is but worse he's not electable. Anyway the left has never been this organized and this strong in recent memory. Politics here is like a fad. In the late 90's it was in vogue to be in extremist right wing politics. (hence the rise of fox news, rush, conservative radio and so on) and it produced Bush. Now thats all on the decline. My generation is very liberal and yet they vote republican. Very odd but they're waking up. People don't like totalitarians and thats what the republican party has become. The cleaning isn't done yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Basically what I'm trying to say here is that politics in this country go like a swing. (more so in other countries). Everything goes in movements. "The Great Society" was started by FDR extended by JFK and really was put into motion by LBJ then Vietnam war happened and LBJ left in disgrace and the movement was put into shatters. Then "Goldwater Republicans" era Picked up steam with Reagan was extended by H.W. Bush and then has fallen apart with W. Bush. The Goldwater movement is dead. The democrats came back to life with Clinton he was a 'third way' type canidate. So for the past 20 some years (remember he ran for Prez in '88). The problem with a third way approach is that its 'centrist' yeah it will work for a while but once it ends the political climate will either go hard right (which is what happened here and in Germany and maybe Canada (if Harper gets a majority)) In other words in order for the Republicans to even have a chance in '08 they're going to have to shed the religious right politics they've ran on for 20-30 years. People are tired of it. So the republicans will have to go the middle road (for example nobody came after Thatcher in the conservative party in the UK because people were tired of it and sick of the idea of Thatcherism continuing) In other words its a swing and its moving left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Carlson Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 well it hasn't actually gone away. The religious right movement is on the decline. Heck down here all the new senators that got elected kept talking about 'social justice', its no secret that the DNC is going to push again for some sort of universal health care. Nobody is talking about it now but that will be the big draw/talked about on the democratic ticket for president in '08. Its in Edwards platform, Hillary came up with the last attempt in '94, and if you look at Obama's voting record and statements as a Illinois Senator he's for universal care as well. The Republicans are doomed because Bush is basically killing any shot of McCain winning with this 'surge' of troops called 'sacrifice'. McCain's idea is to send more troops. Since Our Dear Leader is doing that (and it will fail) McCain will have egg on his face since only 11% of the population support such a move. Who else is there for the Repubs Guilini? LOL LOL LOL he's actually a republican since he supports gay rights, abortion (republicans were suppose to stand for government out of your lives and freedom of things but alas they're not that anymore), Romney? He's Mormon, and already has flipped flopped on gays, abortion. (was originally for that until 2 weeks ago) Brownback? LOL Please that guy is what George Bush is but worse he's not electable. Anyway the left has never been this organized and this strong in recent memory. Politics here is like a fad. In the late 90's it was in vogue to be in extremist right wing politics. (hence the rise of fox news, rush, conservative radio and so on) and it produced Bush. Now thats all on the decline. My generation is very liberal and yet they vote republican. Very odd but they're waking up. People don't like totalitarians and thats what the republican party has become. The cleaning isn't done yet. romney- i've heard of him the mormon dude i heard he sounds a great chance of becoming president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Basically what I'm trying to say here is that politics in this country go like a swing. (more so in other countries). Everything goes in movements. "The Great Society" was started by FDR extended by JFK and really was put into motion by LBJ then Vietnam war happened and LBJ left in disgrace and the movement was put into shatters. Then "Goldwater Republicans" era Picked up steam with Reagan was extended by H.W. Bush and then has fallen apart with W. Bush. The Goldwater movement is dead. The democrats came back to life with Clinton he was a 'third way' type canidate. So for the past 20 some years (remember he ran for Prez in '88). The problem with a third way approach is that its 'centrist' yeah it will work for a while but once it ends the political climate will either go hard right (which is what happened here and in Germany and maybe Canada (if Harper gets a majority)) In other words in order for the Republicans to even have a chance in '08 they're going to have to shed the religious right politics they've ran on for 20-30 years. People are tired of it. So the republicans will have to go the middle road (for example nobody came after Thatcher in the conservative party in the UK because people were tired of it and sick of the idea of Thatcherism continuing) In other words its a swing and its moving left. i've noted that the us political landscape goes through radical changes roughly every third presidency since kennedy. you get two terms of democrats followed by two terms of republicans, followed by two terms of .,. h w bush was an abberation there... he went in based upon reagan's popularity. i remember, when he was running for his second term and was expected to win, i told those around me, in related discussions that he was doomed to lose... there was NO WAY the republicans would take the presidency for four consecutive terms... the popular mood wouldn't allow that. as to the canadian experience, we're kind of weird here... the liberal party is such a chameleon that it redefines itself for every mood that comes up. it also successfully uses scare tactics to push away support for the right & the left (conservatives & new democrats) so we get liberal governments for the HUGE MAJORITY of governments ever since the depression. the presence of a conservative government is almost a breath of fresh air from the rule of the party that is 'ordained' to be canada's only ruling party. hence, the swing to the left in the us will be a short-term thing... two administrations at best, in my mind... but i've been known to be wrong a few times in the last 57 years. GO :hlogo: GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 yeah the Liberal power to me anyway is all about power. People are drawn to it because of its power. Trudeau was really an NDPer, Chreitien went right wing on everyone with 'getting rid of debt at all cost' and Martin you could say was a Progressive Conservative. Very hard to define, very fracturous. Now that the Conservative party is run by neo-conservative Reformers they're far right wing no matter what Harper tries to tell you. So now you've got two parties (NDP, Cons) that are policy parties, in other words they strongly stand for something. The Liberals sort of don't because of their 'big tent', they're more two parties in one with a right wing (martin faction) and a left wing (chretien, old trudeau faction). Here's the problem with 'policy parties'. Canada in general does not like dramatic shifts in politics (unlike here). In reality Canada isn't as 'left wing' as it thinks it is compared to Europe or the NDP would have formed a government by now. Canada usually likes slow change (hence why so many people hated Trudeau he brought change a lot of people didn't like that). This is why the Liberals have always been in power because they're seen as a non reforming the country party. NDP is too to far to the left for a lot of people, and the reformers er conservative party are seen way too far to the right so where does that leave you with the Liberals. When the Progressive Conservative Party was around it was seen as a Liberal type party as in 'the middle' but now that the PCers are gone they people that are in the middle only have one (technically two if they ever read the Green's platform) party that they feel comfortable with and thats the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I was just reading about Romney, his biggest plus is that he is an amazing manager with a fantastic record in both the corporate world and as governer of a large state. Asides from Guliani, none of the other candidates have management experience beyond a senator's office. Here is the article http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...22-7f1f8969d59f Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 well surprise surprise the national post likes a republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 So did the voters of one of the blueist states in the US, whats your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 whats blue and whats red thats out dated. Just another way to polarize the country. If you are a republican in New England you are a traditional republican (progressive conservative) progressive on social issues, conservative when it comes to government financially. The republican parties in New England still run state wide with these views but nationally since the republican party has been hijacked by greedy televangelists and fringe far right groups these people vote democrat nationally. Examples of these types of people would be Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut former Gov. of New York George Pataki Gov. Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine ex Sen. Lincoln Chaffe of Rhode Island Sen. Susan Collins of Maine Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire All are republicans in New England. If they were in a 'red state' they'd be 'evil liberals' (as a speaker at an evangelical meeting I was at called democrats) So basically the Republicans who now believe in theocracy instead of democracy will loose all of their traditional support in the Northeast and eventually will loose the south as a lot of transplants from the north move to where the jobs are at (see Tennessee's '06 senatorial campaign Ford came from 20 points down and almost won) and Virginia isn't hard 'red' anymore either. Colorado is turning blue, Nevada will go blue, Montana is blue (state wide) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 I think the fiscal conservative portion of the republicans are a much more important part of their coalition than the evangelicals. The republicans reckless spending not social deviancy cost them the last election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 nope '06 election had three factors Iraq- duh Corruption- republicans were supposedly the 'anti-corrupt' crowd when they swept both chambers back in '94 Economy- its supposedly 'good' but yet the richer are getting richer and then there's everybody else Schiavo- people remember what congress did, the day the religious right showed its ugly side Populism- came back from the grave. (see economy) In '04 it was about gay people if the republicans didn't have all those gay marriage/civil union bans on the ballot Bush wouldn't have been in office. So the righteous righties tried with the abortion ban in South Dakota lol that failed miserably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Carlson Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 mitt romney is anti abortion apart from in cases of incest, rape, and if the mothers life is in danger Mitt Romney for Presisdent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 banning abortion isn't going to solve anything. The reason why roe vs. wade past to begin with was because women were dying by going to back alley butcher shops. Plus what are the republicans going to do with all those unwanted kids? They don't support housing for single mothers, or support for single mothers. People have the right to do whatever to themselves. The far right people fail to understand why this happens, they think they have the silver bullet which it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Schiavo- people remember what congress did, the day the religious right showed its ugly side You mean when her husband had her killed? banning abortion isn't going to solve anything. The reason why roe vs. wade past to begin with was because women were dying by going to back alley butcher shops. I don't think we'll ever see a full ban, but they at least need to reform much of the laws. Right now, it is still legal for a doctor to murder a9 month old fetus. That is just sick. People have the right to do whatever to themselves. What about the rights of the fetus? The fetus didn't have the right to choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.