Bush III? NOOOOOOO!!!!!

Well its going to come up in p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s. Especially since there are two primary agendas in this country, the conservative agenda and the Marxist communist agenda. The independents do not have any strength and the Libertarians are not strong enough.

So when the dems are spoken of it is impossible to get away from their communist agenda.

However, to say that I bring up communism "in every post, no matter what the topic" is hyperbole. I post in a great many places on this board, but communism only comes up in p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s.

 

?

Not at all. The Democratic party of today is not the same party of origin. The folks who began the Democratic party would not put up with the current party as it stands.

Why would I or anyone equate the democratic party with communism? Because the members of the Democratic party today such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, and especially Hillary....I dont know Rodham or is it Clinton? any way they are cleary communists much in the way of Carl Marx. the following link will help shed some light on it... USA

 

Actually, RM, the Democrats compose the socialist liberal branch of the Demopublican Party and the Republicans compose the socialist conservative branch of the Demopublican Party. Both branches want to tell you either how to spend your money or how to live your personal life.

 

If Hills wins in '08 and serves two and Jeb does the same in '16, that will mean the US will have been ruled by two families for 32 years.

Still, that's republican democracy for you...funny old world.

 

How can a party be socialist and conservative?

 

ok MP, you win

 

How can a party be socialist and conservative? </font>[/QUOTE]By adopting common-ism. &lt;-link and collectivism.

 

Ah, is that a sort of political compass thing?

 

Yeah, I guess it is Matt. All the "isms" as I understand it come from only two basic ideologies. Individualism and collectivism. The farther we stray from individualism the closer we come to communism.
This explains the differences as well as anything. imho. Scroll down to page five.

 

The liberal socialists want the government to control the citizens' money while being more lenient in personal lives. The conservative socialists want the government to control the citizens' personal lives while being more free-market oriented.

We libertarians want the government to leave the citizens' money and personal lives alone.

 

As 'socialist' also has economic slants to it, would not 'authoritarian' (following the Political Compass definition) be a better word to use?

 

Thanks, Matt. That is an excellent suggestion.

 

Sure he will. He'll run as the best of the two options to the conservative base. I know "conservatives" who loved him the first time around.

I would expect him to act and talk Reaganesque to the base during the campaign.

For every vote he loses from people like me, he'll pick up two from the ranks of moderates and crossover Democrats. I not only expect him to win... it could be the first landslide we've seen in some time.

 

A free market is defined as..."an economic market operating by free competition". Not exactly what we are seeing as we move farther into monopoly capitalism and globalization Ken. Other wise I'd agree.

 

But if a monopoly results from free, unregulated competition (eg: more or less the situation prior to the Anti-Trust Act of 1890)...?

 

The liberal socialists want the government to control the citizens' money while being more lenient in personal lives. The conservative socialists want the government to control the citizens' personal lives while being more free-market oriented.

We libertarians want the government to leave the citizens' money and personal lives alone. </font>[/QUOTE]I would register and vote for the LP if they were consistent in their stand for the rights, liberties, and sovereignty of the individual.

So long as they assert that the irresponsible use of legitimate liberty by a woman secures an additional right to kill an unborn child to avoid the incumbant responsibility... I can't for them. It makes them abject hypocrites.

 

For once I think I agree with Poncho. We don't have an economy dominated by free market/enterprise. We have a capitalist dominated economy.

Capitalism is more efficient than socialism but still very centralized and a direct threat to the rights and liberties of the people.