If Bush wins are we going to lean more to Communist or Socialist Country?

I just wonder?

Socialize the risks and privatize the profits. Halliburton is a good example.

What I mean I keep seeing how the media wont show what really is happening in Iraq or other parts of the world. They don't hold Bush responsible for what is happening. The Nation is divided. And last how they (Bush and Thugs) stole the election in 2000.

to do with Communism or Socialism. Apparently, you are thinking of Fascism, Tyranny, or some sort of theocratic dictatorship or oligarchy. Socialism and Communism are not inherently evil systems, as you seem to imply, although certain rulers (a la Stalin) have used perverted forms of those systems in their pursuit of evil.


You might want to brush up on political terminology before you post something that can be seen as so anti-left.

LEFTISH ideologies, not RIGHTWING ideologies (which DOES, however, include Fascism).

In fact, I've come to believe personally that vehement anti-Communist sentiment is one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism. Hitler said his National Socialism (which wasn't socialism at all, of course), was an alternative to Communism, and he went after Communists fiercely -- the Reichstag Fire was blamed on Communists. Our whole Cold War was predicated on fighting Communism, and that hysteria also produced McCarthyism.

And it makes sense too because if Fascism is the melding of corporate interests with government (capitalism triumphant!), communism is its antithesis.

you can kiss it goodbye if Bush wins.

Try a "kinder, gentler, more compassionate" totalitarianism or facism. Think Hitler's Germany or Soviet Russia, with better PR sense.

Or as post #7 says, theocracy. Read Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale to see another likely version of a totalitarian state with GAWD (and his representatives) in charge.

Our nation will become a facist dictatorship.

And those of us not rounded up as "traitors" or "enemy combatants" will be worried about survival.

The Presidency is a figurehead/frontman position in this regime.

Do you mean as a reaction once * is gone, or what?

Please elaborate.

Why bother with either communism or socialism when you have God's own rule?

And the Most Reverend Bush could lead us all down the path to salvation, washing us in the blood of Jesus.

Yes! There is power in the blood!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and will appoint Jeb as the new vice-president for life. (after Cheney dies unexpectedly or resigns to spend more time with his family.)

More predictions here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=111&topic_id=22750&mesg_id=33930

Try fascist, and you'll be closer to the mark.

A true Fascist stays in office indefinatly or until over thrown. I don't know if fascist is accurate.

after all, the asshole didn't win in 2000, the election was stolen. And I'm sure he (they) are prepared to steal it again, if they have to - the Bush Administration is the most dangerous administration this country has ever been faced with. These people are ruthless, and they'll do anything to stay in power and further their own agenda. And all that the dumb ass American electorate can see is this phony war on terror. Inadequate health care, sky rocketing unemployment, rising gasoline prices, and outsourcing of American jobs, don't even phase most people. 'Cuz Dubya's gonna protect us from these here A-rabs what hates out freedoms. I wonder which third world leader is going to be demonized next, so that we can invade their country, and get bogged down in yet another fucking shithole quagmire.

emotional..I can see.


I am no Bush fan either. This upcoming election will be closely monitered I am sure. Even Moore says he is going to Florida to keep things on the level. So if Bush were to win it would have to be fair right? And his term would only be for another four years. So he really can't be a Fascist in the truest sense of the word. That is all I am trying to say.


I think it is moot because I believe Kerry is going to win.

I'm not all that emotional, I'm just fed up with the damned Repukes and their sycophant spokesmen like Rush, perverting our nations values, corrupting everything they come in touch with, lieing and twisting the truth. I'm infuriated when I see chicken hawks like Bush/Cheney sending men and women off to war to die, when they never hand the nuts to go to war themselves - and the unmitigated audacity of these scumbags, to even presume to comment on Kerry's war record. There's just no end to the effrontery of these scumbags. Any way, I hope to God you're right in your prediction that Kerry is going to win. Because otherwise, this country will do good to survive four more years.

you sure do use a lot of adjectives for someone who isn't emotional.

Look I think Bush is a shitty president. But I don't fall in to the whole conspiracy theory group. I won't be leaving the country if he gets elected. Many Presidents have sent men to war and to death. It is a fact of life. My girlfriend gets mad if I leave dirty dishes in the sink. She sounds much like you when describing how much of a Bastard I am for doing so.


Bush is a bad President but I think you are being overly dramatic here. He is not Hannibal Lector. Most presidential candidates come from rich families. Kerry isn't exactly poor.

Clinton gave Haliburton bid free jobs in Bosnia. So lets just keep politics as politics. Bush is a bad president. Bottom line. Cocaine at camp David, Kitty Kelly, The First lady a prostitute selling dime bags, and the daughters fashion sense....are all over the top. Can we just agree on that.

...why is that?

Hmmm...seems I read that somewhere before. You're back so soon? :eyes:

It's every other state or county that has bought into the electronic touch screen voting with no paper trail bullshit and will be using them in November.

I'm not usually a tinfoil fan, but I know how easy it is to get around computer programs. One erroneously wiped chip, one network backbone left in "test" mode, can take an entire precinct or group of precincts out of the voting, and disenfranchise thousands of voters.
That's far more likely to happen, considering the politics of the manufacturers of these machines - especially in minority or Democratic areas - than blockades and intimidation this year. I can actually see the voter intimidation types of complaints going down this year - why should they intimidate the voters if they can just make sure their vote doesn't count in the first place?

Haele

because the right wing has a vast media machine out there spreading tons of disinformation that intentionally misleads the people. We can fight on that level to some extent, but we don't have the developed infrastructure, or the heart to be outright evil bastards like these guys. This is one of those instances where we really do have to believe that human nature is such that it will err towards truth and good even when other forces have managed to create a distorted picture of reality. It doesn't hurt to give human nature a push in the right direction though!

Welcome to DU btw! :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NO !!

Bush is a Stalin disciple. He has his Gulag. More to come.

... unless we wind up in yet another war.

Supporting argument: If Bush is re-elected, then like it or not, much of our economy is now on a wartime footing and will likely remain so for the next 2 years. Home industries are pumping out bombs, bullets, and beans, so a lot of the positive economic news is the short term bump that initially accompanies a wartime economy (vis a vis Napoleon's France). But in the long run, as resources are diverted from the consumer market, and the fruits of production sent overseas, we'll wind up in a recession with inflation to boot (fewer resources to go around & all that).

And when recession hits, people get thrown out of work or otherwise bear the brunt of reduced money for wages, with the result that the general voting populace becomes much more compassionate, much more receptive to the ideals of socialist philosophy. This equates to a Democrat with socialist inclinations in 2008 taking the presidency.

I'm not particularly fond of Hillary or her political ideas, but the current hand of cards looks like a sure win for her in the next presidential election. The greater Bush's victory, the more the current Administration will feel they possess a mandate for carte blanche activity in Iraq, and therefore the greater the backlash when the war economy comes to a screeching halt -- the greater the odds that a Bush win means a Socialist country.

(disclaimer: I'm a Freeper. I'm also what you might call a "Tsongas Republican" though I usually vote Libertarian & am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.)

call yourself a "Jeffersonian Liberal" and claim to be a "freeper." Those people know NOTHING of Thomas Jefferson, classical liberalism, or libertarianism/anarchy. They are totalitarian christo-fascists -- at least the die-harders, and the ones that control the party are.

You don't need to tell me -- I was one of the original Freepers, from six years ago. Back then, it was all about the dialog - public discourse of ideas. We had lots of conservatives, but also some liberals friends, and quite a few libertarians. Things gradually slid away from polite, if feisty, conversations. Then after 9/11...

(sigh) Things change. I'm spending more time here than there these days. But it's worrisome, to see so many blinded by rage & mistrust on both sides of the fence. I'd like to discuss issues with folks, without the wild emotions flying about. Is that possible here?

I *am* a freeper. And a Jeffersonian Liberal. And believe in the purpose of DU. These are not entirely exclusive sets of beliefs! And this is turning into threadjack... look, I think Bush will win, then Hillary will win. Bush tends toward corporate socialism, and Hillary tends towards public socialism. Either way, the general public gets shafted. I wish it weren't so... I wish someone would take up the gauntlet thus thrust down, and take up the challenge to convince me otherwise. Please! It would be nice to have hope for the political future of our nation (for a change).

As things are, it seems we're hell-bent down the road to something similar to the National Socialist Party that ruined Germany in the last century.

What you mean when you say that Hillary's socialism will screw the general people? I don't consider the rich having to shell out a larger percent of their income to be screwing over the general public.
Here's what screwing over the general public is: when I and others like me have to pay more for pills per month than in rent and mortgage because we can't get health insurance, THAT is screwing over the general public. When my husband and others can't go to the dentist because we have no dental insurance and no money to pay out of pocket, THAT is screwing the general public. When poor families who used to rely on schools to provide breakfast for their kids now find those programs cut, THAT is screwing over the general public. When ALL of us pay our tax money so that the rich can get another tax cut and the burden is shifted to the rest of us, THAT is screwing over the public. Start another thread of you like.

The elite will always ride the crest, no matter how we liliputians try to tie them down. I worked for a fabulously wealthy man once who chewed me out for proposing to give my crew a buck an hour raise. These folks had families, and could sorely use the extra money. The company was profitable & we could easily afford it. Yet this guy, worth several hundreds of millions, said it was too much, and halved the annual raise.

Then he left on his private jet. A few hours later, his personal secretary discovered that she forgot a $25 Walmart-style stroller at his summer house, located near our company. He dispatched a $200 an hour special service crew to find & retrieve & air-freight said stroller. My operation was charged almost $1000 for this "owner-related company expense."

SemiCharmedQuark, I hear you, loud & clear. It's just plain unfair. The man was an incredible ass... and yet, I'd rather try to convince people like this to voluntarily choose the righteous path, than pass a law and force them to do my bidding. I fully agree with you that the situation is completely unfair... but disagree with your method of enforcing an economic justice.

Thank you for your reply, thoughts, and willingness to talk. If we could be good to each other more often, the world would be a much improved place, and more equitable, don't you agree?

Brother.

I've been monitoring freerepublic for eight years. You'll forgive me for not being very friendly.

However, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the elite to willingly give up their power. Never happened, never will happen.

and support DU at the same time. Believe me, I'm down with nuanced beliefs, and all -- I'm just curious.

I suppose you can be a "freeper" as in "I associate at Free Republic, because I have some things in common with them, though I am no GOP Civil Church of Mammon and the Fake Jesus Devotee." But to be a FREEPER, at least, for me, is like the total package -- like Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney -- all rolled into one.

I have some things in common with the freepers, I suppose -- on the surface. But deep down, our philosophies and worldviews are complete 180s.

The reason I got so "irate" when you said you were a Jeffersonian Liberal AND a freeper, is that I spent my summer reading about Jefferson, Rousseau and the Anti-Federalists, and the freepers want to completely eradicate that claim to governance -- the "just society," you know -- or at least they want to replace it with a dominant cultural narrative that has to do with a Jesus who shines his love down on the rich -- quite the antithesis of what I've seen in the Bible.

Check out Mario Cuomo -- he's all about this. Where he and I differ, however, is that I feel that even though we should have a "just society" that, in any case, too much government power leads to an infrastructure that can easily be usurped by nefarious Christo-fascists, a la the GOP extremists, and that the government exists equally to support the concentration of wealth -- EVEN if it appears to be "egalitarian."

I tend, myself to take the "personal responsiblity" mantra of the GOP and turn it around, a la Jefferson -- and say that each and every person has the "responsibility" to contribute to a "just society," that every person must be a discriminating consumer and worker, a conservationist, responsible for the children they bear, have the utmost respect for the inalienable rights of others and a steward of Democracy.

So I am something of an anarchist/anarchosyndicalist/libertarian -- but where I differ from THEM is that I believe the collective and the individual can both pursue their goals, within the framework of the United States -- and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution allows us that to happen. I also believe in the Constitution, which some of them do not. The problem is, that everything is so FUCKED UP, from both the GOP and the Dems running rampant with centralized government, and the fact that major corporations have centralized our psyche through national branding and centralized our resources through concentration of wealth -- I'm afraid that it may be too late for any of this to be of any use, without a complete revolution and/or collapse of the system.

I pray (to a god I don't believe in) every night that the whole world decides to cripple us by calling in our debt or refusing to sell us oil or something -- yet, I'm still voting for John Kerry, because I'm not ready to go down the road of GOP fascism. I see complete chaos as a better alternative.

At any rate, I DO understand how you can have conflicting views. I've been a Democrat my entire life, until recently, when I went the "government is bad" route -- and while I still hold onto the virtue of egalitarianism, the critiques of feminism/marxism, and the VILE HATRED of the constructs of conservative social institutions, I do end up sharing some things in common with far-right extremists. Like I said -- only on the surface, however.

Anyway, I would like you to explain and talk more about what you're thinking about, and why you, a freeper, have shown up on the DU doorstep. Maybe you CAN start another thread, and put some of these messages in it, for background. PM me, if you do.

because it means that if you don't "own" something, you're going to become part of the dreaded lower class. Buying a house or condo with a variable rate mortgage doesn't really mean you "own" it, just wait until interest rates start climbing, then the banks own you. Replacing social security with privatized investment accounts just means a greater supply of corporate welfare, there's no motivation for the entire set of funds to move higher. Only those few who are lucky or fortunate will survive.

watch out for them hurricanes!

You see Bush as protection against the Red Threat. With Red Hilary lying in wait.

..."a card-carrying member of the ACLU", you would know the difference between "Communism" and "Fascism".

Oh wait, their leader died in Buchenwald.

...a form of military-industrial government that we have been living under since the Coup of December 2000. This is a style of government best compared to that of Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1938.

Communism is considered to be FAR leftwing, while a socialist style government is considered to be leftist in nature. Both forms of government, in their purest forms, can decay into totalitarianism.

A republic, very similar to the style of government we had before the Coup, is considered to be a middle-of-the road style of government, sometimes leaning a little left, sometimes leaning a little right.

We'll lean toward armed revolution.

Bu$h will allow corporations to completely take over the government. A one party totalitarian Corporate State will be created.

problem is, that it's already like that. And Democrats are part of the problem.

any more than Ashcroft saying he's a christian means he follows Christ, or * saying he believes in freedom means he doesn't mean to crush freedom every chance he gets.

Totalitarian of some sort,whether corporate, theocratic, or quite possibly a hideous hybrid beast looks inevitable if * aquires a second term.

Said in 1961, in his farewell speech, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Welcome to the 21st century. The TSA is empowered to stop citizens everywhere/anywhere & demand their citizenship papers. Enormous tax burdens are levied on the working poor (why does Kerry & his wife pay 11% tax? Why does Bush pay 28%? Our $10 per hour part-time garbageman pays about 18% of his hard-earned wages, an avg of these would be do-gooders). Those taxes go to buy the necessities of war, ala the military-industrial complex. Socialized corporations are already here, in part, dominating the land. And want socialized medicine? Watch the Merck lobbyists line up for an exclusive fat gov't contract to provide medical supplies to the new medicine-industrial complex...

It doesn't matter who wins this year, really, or even the next. The system is already infected. Whatever happened to all of the anti-establishment people? We could really use their wisdom in this age.

where workers own and control the means of production, the short answer is "neither."

The true answer is that we will advance ever further down the road towards an oligarchy by corporate kleptocrats.

If Bush wins, then fascism will have dethroned the American way of life. I doubt that things will ever be the same again as the multinationals cement up, once and for all, their control on our way of life.

You bet your ass on it. Nothing wrong with socialism.

Where will "we" lean? I'll go as far Left as possible. Don't know about you.

terms mean!

Are you talking about Communistic/Socialistic-- try TOTAL DICTATORSHIP

that the CIA, Harvard and Ford Motor Company installed by coup in Indonesia, my friend. Socialism? Communism? ??? nope, it's the broadest of brushes now-terrists.
Read this and weep-then help do something.
http://www.cia-on-campus.org/internat/indo.html

All the billions of taxpayer dollars going toward the military-industrial complex amounts to corporate welfare. As the middle class shrinks further, America will divide into the class of Party members and the class of the proletariat. Future generations will become enslaved by the growing deficit. In the larger world, this future Amerika would function as a fascist capitalistic entity with the Party members enjoying all the fruits of the profits. Neo-cons have always been identified as the "radical" right, with true conservatives opposing them. Don't despair, its not too late to become of a member of the Party by owning part of something big that the Party needs.

I've noticed quite a few posts recently where the poster implies that Bush is a Socialist. Of course, Bush is the complete opposite of a Socialist (with an even further move to the right after that): tax cuts for the rich, privatization of everything, fuck the poor, etc.

Socialism in its simplest form is the opposite of Capitalism, but of course a government (like most western govts. including our own) can mix the two to varying degrees. Socialism sees a healthy society as being one in which the most members benefit; Capitalism holds private, individualistic profit as its ideal. Again as simply as possible, Socialism at its extreme is Communism (no private enterprise at all), and Capitalism becomes Fascism/Randian Libertarianism (nothing but private greed).

The Eastern Blok was Socialist and/or Communist the same way George Bush is a Christian and Osama bin Laden is a Muslim: they are all truly Totalitarians who practice the same religion of power but call it by different names. Mussolini started out as a Socialist and then became a Fascist; he was interested in power, not in policy. Hell, the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" but hated Socialists. Extremists and Totalitarians just use whatever enables them to ascend to power: Lenin and Stalin exploited Communism; Bush exploits Christianity; bin Laden exploits Islam; etc.

The Bush Administration and the current RNC are fascist organizations. If Bush manages to mantain his grip on power, you can bet we'll have a full-fledged FASCIST dictatorship.

that could only be enforced by robots, or in a world such as Star Trek: The Next Generation. Bush will never eradicate the proletariat as long as they are needed to fulfill low paying jobs, and in order to strengthen the military. Consequently, they will be provided for....in a minimalist way.

And yes, I am fully aware thet Fascist leaders usually don't leave office under their own power.

If he gets re-appointed, it's "Game OVER, Dude!"

...its just a phrase Hitler used to fool people. National Socialism is fascism, and is based on corporatism.

though he liked to say he was. He was a fascist.