Bush is a communist!

amuk define "all of them". republicans or politicians in general?

politicians in general

I have a problem with authority

ok fair enough! i can go along with that.

i dont like authority myself but i find ways to play along and still do the things i want.

i'm not saying people cant or shouldnt be mad upset, disappointed,etc but whining spreading doom and gloom and doing nothing to make any changes is a like mashing the go pedal in your car in the snow. sure your wheels are spinning but are you getting anywhere?

Who the hell would think Bush is a communist?

Unless it was a joke, none of you know dick all about communism except the guy who said he'd be a fascist.

Communists aren't people who want to ruin everyone elses lives by control over everything, they aren't 'questionless authoritative rulers', that is just what has happened by circumstance.

Communists, Marxists, and other Socialists are generally good people, the problem is that the easiest way to achieve Communism is through Revolution, and in any Revolution there is corruption, and the leader of the Revolution fears for another 2nd Revolution that will depose him, so he becomes Iron-Fisted and lines his government with weak and incompetent morons, so that his power can remain unquestioned, and he won't die.

Communists generally believe in all supporting one, and one supporting all, in having an equal society free of bias, in making sure that everyone who does their share makes it. They don't think that absolute control of everyone is an aim to look for.

Now there's obviously a lot of problems with Communism, but were it done right it would serve the world a whole #load better than Capitalism does.

i'm not saying people cant or shouldnt be mad upset, disappointed,etc but whining spreading doom and gloom and doing nothing to make any changes is a like mashing the go pedal in your car in the snow. sure your wheels are spinning but are you getting anywhere?

I agree 100 %.

I wonder who many of the people b*tching vote? there are more than 2 parties out there if you dont like these people vote them out.

But then we didnt vote bush in to begain with

Vote libertarian lets have some NEW crooks

do you no what the basses of comunisum is? if he was a true comunist he would enact more socalist policies and do away with democratic rulling
sorry if i misspelled anything

Originally posted by GovConpiracy
I think that George Bush is a communist because he keeps making these stupid departments such as homeland security becuase he wants to controll all of us, then he'll declare mart. law and put us in labor camps if we refuse the NWO....

blah blah blah

come on krazy ivan add something to this discussion besides blah blah blah.

show me something substantial.

Originally posted by Viendin
Who the hell would think Bush is a communist?

Unless it was a joke, none of you know dick all about communism except the guy who said he'd be a fascist.

Communists aren't people who want to ruin everyone elses lives by control over everything, they aren't 'questionless authoritative rulers', that is just what has happened by circumstance.

Communists, Marxists, and other Socialists are generally good people, the problem is that the easiest way to achieve Communism is through Revolution, and in any Revolution there is corruption, and the leader of the Revolution fears for another 2nd Revolution that will depose him, so he becomes Iron-Fisted and lines his government with weak and incompetent morons, so that his power can remain unquestioned, and he won't die.

Communists generally believe in all supporting one, and one supporting all, in having an equal society free of bias, in making sure that everyone who does their share makes it. They don't think that absolute control of everyone is an aim to look for.

Now there's obviously a lot of problems with Communism, but were it done right it would serve the world a whole #load better than Capitalism does.

Exactly, Viendin! How can people be so dense when it comes to what Communism is? "Communism is evil, because our government that doesn't ever lie said so! Therefore, our lying government is evil!"

People whine and cringe in fear when they hear the word Communism, just as they do when they hear "Osama", and I still can't figure out why. There is nothing wrong with Communism. In theory, it's the best way to run a country.

Now comes the argument of, "Yes, Communism is good in theory, but not in practice." Sorry, but everything is perfect in theory, and not in practice. Our Capitalist society works well in theory - and is hell in practice.

Long live the People's Revolution!

Just so everyone knows I don't think Bush is going to put us in death camps, or declare martial law, I just dont like him, and I didn't Gore either you know...

It was two asstards to pick from...


unappealing.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
come on krazy ivan add something to this discussion besides blah blah blah.

show me something substantial.

im sorry monkey.
im not feeling good today.
more will come later on. dont worry

Originally posted by Lysergic
Just so everyone knows I don't think Bush is going to put us in death camps, or declare martial law, I just dont like him, and I didn't Gore either you know...

It was two asstards to pick from...


unappealing.

yes two asstards..thats usually how it goes...damned if you do, damned if you dont.


ivan i await your posts at a later date!

Either way, imo, the same people will be pulling the strings no matter who is in office... really...

it might be slightly different, but more of just a facade, it's all the same, if you think differently you are only lying to yourself, imo, irl.

Originally posted by Lysergic
Either way, imo, the same people will be pulling the strings no matter who is in office... really...

it might be slightly different, but more of just a facade, it's all the same, if you think differently you are only lying to yourself, imo, irl.

i couldnt agree more.

voting in america is like getting a beating and you get to choose from a baseball bat or a lead pipe, either way you're getting hurt. the end result is the same.

Ok, here goes...

This is my explanation for the failure of communism.

When one attemts to change a capitalist society to a communist society, certain steps must be taken, because you can't just jump right in, it doesn't work. You must run a course through socialism, wherein the government takes control of everything so they may redistribute it equally, right?

When the government aquires everything(property, business, money, ect..) is when things start to go awry. Many people in the government are, because they have everything, living very comfortably, and don't want to redistribute it all back. They usually give most of it back, but they always keep a little extra for themselves. This means they still have the power in the country, an authority to dictate things so they may still live comfortably.

The leaders have now become corrupt. They have they power, and will do most anything to keep it. They have become an authoritarian government.
----------------------------------
Can you see it? Do you see why it doesn't work. They government, at one point, controls all. They have absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutly.(thank you Mr. Orwell) You cannot possibly say that communism would be the best way to run a government. Give me one example of a communist nation,(any time in history or in the present) and I will point out to you how it is not. Most of them are socialism turned athoritarian.

Capitalism is the worst form of government, except all others. In capitalism you can at least have a chance at a comfortable living, where in communism/socialism/authoritarian you don't. A moderate balance of capitalist and socialist policies must be maintained, and the centeral government must be kept in check. The form of government that we have now is basically an aristocracy.(the rich rule) That is the way it was designed from day one.(any history buffs ever hear the term, aristocracy of talent?) Luckily, they allow us the power to take it back, though most of us are blinded by our own wants and needs. They do a good job of keeping us occupied(politcs, hollywood, media propaganda) so they may live comfortably.(sound familiar?)

Ah, Joe, if Communism were done right, done democratically, it really could work well.

The reason no one nation has ever made it work is for a great part what you have said, but in a world where work directly translates to reward and work directly translates to tradable, addable capital, the capital is the more profitable, and the direct will fail.

Communism needs a world economy to work! If the whole world was communist, it wouldn't be warring against a capitalist country and spending every ounce of its cash on defence and attack systems now, would it?

Capitalism's goal is a few rich men and a poor earth. When you have x sum of money, and it is spread evenly over 100 people, and every second, their amount of money becomes worth slightly less, so that they must earn more just to have what they did before, and trading begins, 25 people end up with twice the money, 50 with their starting amount, and 25 with nothing. The people with nothing have nothing to offer. No assets. They are wiped out. We now have 75 people, 50 with n amount of money, and 25 with 2n. The 25 with 2n can put n out into the market and still have a cushion of n left. The men with only n put out all of their assets, 15 end up with nothing, 20 with the same as before, 15 with double. In the richer vein, there are 25 men, they have more ways to gamble, hold it all, bet it all, bet one. so we end with 5 men at nothing, 5 at one, 5 at what they had, 5 at 150% of their 2n (that's 3n) and 5 with twice their bet, lucky them it was 2n, so they have 4n. we're out 20 more guys, so the # in this room with assets is down to 55, out of that, 25 have n, 20 have 2n, 5 have 3n, and 5 have 4n. Now a twist, the guys from before, all 45 of them, they're given a half n each. There's no way they can compete in this 4n world, so they invest their money on the guarantee of a small return of profit, who will they go with? 10 for the 2n's, 14 for the 3n's, and 21 for the 4n's, it sounds fair! the most go with the most successful! so across the 5 guys in each, they're all up a certain amount, we've got 5 - 3n's, 5 - 4.4n's, and 5 - 6.1n's, the 45 are back out again, they're moneyless! The next trade opens, one guy with 6.1n comes back with 12.2, 1 with 9.15n's, 1 with 6.1, one with 3.05, and another's broke! The same general trend affects all, so we're down to about 10 guys with over 5n's having a virtual monopoly when everyone started with a single n. Out of 100 people we're down to about 40. Capitalism takes from the poor to give to the rich. At the end of it all, those poor guys who were kicked out get back about 2n each, while 1 or 2 guys sit there lighting cigar's on 50n bills.

Now that was a WHOLE lot to read, and you probably got the gist without examining each bit, but Communisms aim is to stop having people make more with each trade, so that everyone trades 1n, and everyone gets 1n. no one ends up mysteriously with 50, and no one with 0.

I agree, its been a failure, but Marx was definitely on to something.

Originally posted by Viendin
Ah, Joe, if Communism were done right, done democratically, it really could work well.

The reason no one nation has ever made it work is for a great part what you have said, but in a world where work directly translates to reward and work directly translates to tradable, addable capital, the capital is the more profitable, and the direct will fail.

Communism needs a world economy to work! If the whole world was communist, it wouldn't be warring against a capitalist country and spending every ounce of its cash on defence and attack systems now, would it?

Capitalism's goal is a few rich men and a poor earth. When you have x sum of money, and it is spread evenly over 100 people, and every second, their amount of money becomes worth slightly less, so that they must earn more just to have what they did before, and trading begins, 25 people end up with twice the money, 50 with their starting amount, and 25 with nothing. The people with nothing have nothing to offer. No assets. They are wiped out. We now have 75 people, 50 with n amount of money, and 25 with 2n. The 25 with 2n can put n out into the market and still have a cushion of n left. The men with only n put out all of their assets, 15 end up with nothing, 20 with the same as before, 15 with double. In the richer vein, there are 25 men, they have more ways to gamble, hold it all, bet it all, bet one. so we end with 5 men at nothing, 5 at one, 5 at what they had, 5 at 150% of their 2n (that's 3n) and 5 with twice their bet, lucky them it was 2n, so they have 4n. we're out 20 more guys, so the # in this room with assets is down to 55, out of that, 25 have n, 20 have 2n, 5 have 3n, and 5 have 4n. Now a twist, the guys from before, all 45 of them, they're given a half n each. There's no way they can compete in this 4n world, so they invest their money on the guarantee of a small return of profit, who will they go with? 10 for the 2n's, 14 for the 3n's, and 21 for the 4n's, it sounds fair! the most go with the most successful! so across the 5 guys in each, they're all up a certain amount, we've got 5 - 3n's, 5 - 4.4n's, and 5 - 6.1n's, the 45 are back out again, they're moneyless! The next trade opens, one guy with 6.1n comes back with 12.2, 1 with 9.15n's, 1 with 6.1, one with 3.05, and another's broke! The same general trend affects all, so we're down to about 10 guys with over 5n's having a virtual monopoly when everyone started with a single n. Out of 100 people we're down to about 40. Capitalism takes from the poor to give to the rich. At the end of it all, those poor guys who were kicked out get back about 2n each, while 1 or 2 guys sit there lighting cigar's on 50n bills.

Now that was a WHOLE lot to read, and you probably got the gist without examining each bit, but Communisms aim is to stop having people make more with each trade, so that everyone trades 1n, and everyone gets 1n. no one ends up mysteriously with 50, and no one with 0.

I agree, its been a failure, but Marx was definitely on to something.

[off topic]
But it also creates stagnation and more people would stop working expecting others who do to share what they make and the economy will start falling fast and noone could maintain a high living standard, technological advancement, education, etc, a democratic communist society anyways, a communist dictatorship would fate better because they could force people to work.

a society is only as good as its people and you cant blame its government form on how things are, thats just taking the blame off yourself, communism wont ever work untill society changes to be more responsible, less lazy, less greedy and actually stops blaming others for what they screw up themselves.

Originally posted by GovConpiracy
I think that George Bush is a communist because he keeps making these stupid departments such as homeland security becuase he wants to controll all of us, then he'll declare mart. law and put us in labor camps if we refuse the NWO....

Ok this is what I here all the time.

Bush is a Commie.

Bush is a Terrorist.

Bush is a Nazi.

Sorry to break the bobble but commies, nazis, and terrorists do not like each other!

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Russian]

Keep in mind. I am not fighting Communism or defending Capitalism. I just want Democracy with balance.

Viendin
I agree, its been a failure, but Marx was definitely on to something.

He was on to something. He designed a perfect system where everyone could be equally happy. BUT, he forgot to factor in human flaw. He didn't factor in greed or laziness. For Communism to work, everyone must want Communism. Everyone must want to be equal. They must be willing to sacrifice.

Do you think a majority of the rich want to live like the middle class? Would they give up their three summer homes in Bermuta, their silk sheets, lavish clothing? I know I wouldn't like to move any further down the ladder. They would be the ones who screw up the system by cheating, hoarding, or sapping funds. Like I said, we currently have an aristocracy.

I don't believe Capitalism's "goal" is for a few rich men and a poor Earth. It is what you make of it. If you try hard to make a comfortable living, you will have it. True, some must try harder, but it is always possible. This country, however, is not truly Capitalist. We are a free-market Aristocracy, and were always designed to be so.(so you can't use the USA as an example of Capitalism) It was designed to be a place for the rich that were not accepted in Europe to live and rule. They rule the system, they have the power. Personally, I don't even think they know how much power they have.

Then comes the laziness factor that namehere mentioned. It causes people to be unproductive. No incentives are offered to work hard. You get paid the same no matter how much you do. Capitalism, on the other hand, gives people a chance to attain their dreams, to be greedy, to work harder. Though, in our present time with all the socialistic policies being thrown around, people are lazier than ever. They don't want to learn, and they don't want to work.

Socialism, not Communism is the flaw. If you could find a way to get to Communism without going through Socialism, you could have it. As I have said before, there has never(EVER) been a Communist country. Every single one in history(USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, ect...) were(or are) ALL Socialism or Authoritarian.

Capitalism is the only system that factors in greed and laziness. The only flaw I can see in Capitalism is that there is no factor for coruptness.

First off I'd like to say that this would only work in a world economy, where there isn't another country sitting next door that everyone can run to to make their own personal glory.

A form based on communism, where work = pay in a manner where your amount of work qualifies you for a monthly bonus.

Every family gets the necessities, that is food, water, and shelter, and would live closer to the equator.

Those that work harder, gain more, in a bit of a level system. The more you work, the farther north you can live, as a symbol of your status, you get to live in more spacious areas. You can live up there with the bare bolts, or you can get yourself something in the equatorial regions with more luxurious living, eg Television, Internet, larger housing.

Now while I'm aware you're thinking that I'm a dreaming hippie that won't see the world work that way, I think that one day a society based on social rank, with social rank based on charity work and normal work amounts, could work.