Teppesh

I believe that when it gets down to it, that this election is about the type of government we want to see in the future. At least that's how I see it, and considering the response to the previous posts that is apparently an issue for others. I don't believe that the democrats are socialists, as I stated before, but I do see a growing socialization of this country, that is largely because of the Democratic party. Hell Eisenhower said it in 1953, offcourse, he wasn't refering to the demies. I do know that their is a difference between Socialism and Communism, but I also believe that they have some simularities that cannot be ignored. Socialism does breed stagnation to the fact that, those in the lower classes are provided various necessities that they otherwise would not have. That means that, because they do not have to work for necessities, they will not work for them. Growing up on welfare, before the reforms, I can say that, at the time the vast majority of people I saw and lived around, did not need to be on welfare. A large minority were on drugs(I'm not talking pot either) and/or involved in the biz, and exept for a small number, the rest had no interests to improve their lot. Yeah, they would bitch and moan all the damn time that they, can't get work or should get more, but made no effort what so ever to do so. Also I believe that socialism is a sacrifice of indivisual liberties in favor of social engeneering, yeah, not to the point of communism, but the element is still their. Government is their to protect me from foriegn powers, exploitation from the rich, and exploitation from the poor, not to provide for my personal needs. Parents are supposed to provide my needs as a child, I am no longer a child. "Socialists propose to supplant the competitive planning of capitalism with a highly centralized planned economy. Our aim is frankly international and not narrowly patriotic, but I cannot here discuss socialism's international policies. If we gained control of the american government, we would probably begin with a complete revision of the national governmental system. We would do one of two things. We would wright an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal government the right to regulate all private business which it deemed proper, or we would abolish the the Constitution altogether ans give the national congress the power to interpret the peoples will subject only to curtain general principles of free speech and free assembage." - Paul Blanshard(1932).

First thing wrong with france is the fact that the Gaul's are just a newer friendlier version of the Nazi party. Extreame nationalism, socialism and a strong anti-semetic bias, sounds like fascism to me. Also about the poor. I was born in poverty, and grew up in poverty. I can say we don't and never wanted hand outs, hand outs don't help. Help is appreciated, but the vast majority of us wantv to be able to take care of ourselves. Suffer from lack of an edgucation, edgucate yourself, I did. Suffer from injury and illness, heal yourself, i did. The thing about socialism is that, in a socialistic world it is assumed that I am hopeless, incapible of improving my own lot, so programs are instituted to house me, feed me, and heal me, with everyone else paying for it. Do you know how depricating it is to be on welfare? How hard it is to get off of it? I no longer live in abject poverty, Yeah, I'm hardley rich, but in a socialist world I could never get as far as I have. Also, without hardship, their is rarely aney motivation to change ones lot. Communism, and socialism are simular in that, both breed stagnation.

What, there are alot of democrats that have a socialists bent. Kerry=universal healthcare universal healthcare=socialized medicine. That is just one example, their are others. Understand, I am not one of those "communist conspiracy" types, it is just that over the past 20 years or so it seems like the democrats have taken a more socialistic bent. The dems have always been fractitious, though less so in recent years and I know that a number of the minority (including the 'dixiecrats' and Nadder's camp) factions resent the current domination. I also apoligies fer' th'spellin.

This morning I actually heard Nadder on Commu,,,oh, I mean Democracy Now. I will say, he's an old school libbie, doesn't have the socialist bent that most of the democrats do. If Bush loses, I want Nadder to win. Of course it depends if he's on the ballet, apparently the Dems have put big bucks in to make sure he isn't on the ballet, something like 50 high priced lawyers a state. The way Nadder put is was, "if it was the republicans who were dropping that much money I would be completly off the ballet."LOL

That is unless you like higher taxes, and believe that he can raise trillions of dollars from the rich, to both support the war and fund the myriad of domestic programs he supports. Yeah, sure. I believe it.

Postman, I wonder if you have actually read the transcripts of the debate. If so you would see that the entire debate consisted of Kerry trying to bate Dubya'. Watching or listening to the debate you see that it had an effect but wasn't completley successfull, in that, Dubya' was able to stay on topic without turning the debate into a 'flame war'. The hard hitting stuff comes at the last debate and Bush knows it and Kerry took off his gloves way too early. When it comes to domestic issues Bush will tear apart Kerry's domestic policy, which will have serrious effects on the middle-america vote.

Yeah, but when it gets down to it Kerry is not against the war, he just is against how Bush is running the war, but he also has been participating in a more subtle matter in other international issues, cooperating with other countries instead of playing 'world police', to the nations of the world. Kerry wants to increase spec. forces send troops to darfore (??) and wants the US to take a singular Unilateral possission on world affairs, with the only exeption bieng Iraq. :-? It is that kind of politics that fueled the fires for these terrorist groups and aloud them to gain a very large minority support in the Islamic world. Now, we are stuck dealing with it and Bush has if anything pulled back the riegns when it comes to international involvement. It is just that everybody is paying more attention to what he 'is ' doing instead of what he 'isn't'. Remember, Clinton deployed more troops around the world then any other president in a unilateral stance with the world. This is the kind of shit that causes the various islamic terrorist groups to target US.

I noticed that when you campare the actual things said during the debate by both candedates instead of the way they were spoken, bush won. If anything a few of Kerry's statements (the ones actually refering to what he will do) are a bit concerning. For instance there's his hole bilateral stances against N. Korea and Iran (i.e. Unilateralism) and his desire to send troops to the Sudan. It seems to me that he intends to use the same foriegn policy (Reagan, Clinten) model that triggered the current problems.