S
Steven L. Sheffield
Guest
On 11/14/2007 07:50 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven loves the idea of supporting people who would murder him for
>>> his own values. And he is strange enough not to even understand that.
>>>
>>> If you're going to support a penny ante louse (and we're forced to do
>>> that whether we like it or not - you might actually read some of the
>>> writings of Lyndon Johnson where he expressed complete surprise that
>>> you could buy off some of the world's worst dictators rather cheaply)
>>> you might as well get one that will actually support you and not one
>>> who wants to destroy the world.
>>
>> The problem with this is when they look good now (such as the
>> mujahideen in Afghanistan, supported by both political parties
>> since they were doing a nice job of stopping the Soviets) but then
>> a few years later they turn out not to be such good guys (bin
>> Laden, indirectly the Taleban).
>
> Pete, if you're going to comment on these things at least know something
> about it. The Mujahadeen were not "a" group but a loose association of a lot
> of groups. The Taliban were only one that actually worked to overthrow
> everyone else while the rest of the Mujahadeen's members worked to defeat
> the Soviets. Pretending that this was a single entity is completely
> incorrect.
>
>>> Liberals supported Stalin to the point where they printed complete
>>> and utter lies in the New York Times about the great life under
>>> Stalin. And virtually every tin horn lunatic that had the
>>> intelligence to quote socialist propaganda since then has been
>>> supported without question by Liberals here.
>>
>> There is a difference between communism and socialism. It doesn't help
>> that communists tend to claim they're socialists because it sounds
>> nicer, but there is a difference. Then there is the issue of government on
>> top of that.
>
> Indeed, but as some have said, most socialisms that managed to obtain a way
> to retain power were no better than communism in the long run.
Seems like Sweden has been run by Socialists (or rather, the Social
Democratic Worker's Party) for years.
And I seem to recall that our good friends in the United Kingdom have been
lead by the Labour Party (whose political ideology is one of democratic
socialism). In fact, the Labour Party's official European Parliament
affiliation is with the Party of European Socialists, and international
affiliation is with the Socialist International.
Other major European and U.S. allies affiliated with the Socialist
International are currently governing:
Austria - Social Democratic Party of Austria
Belgium - Socialist Party
Estonia - Social Democratic Party
Hungary - Hungarian Socialist Party
Italy - Democrats of the Left & Italian Democratic Socialists
(coalition under Olive Tree)
Lithuania - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party
Netherlands - Labour Party
New Zealand - New Zealand Labour Party
Norway - Norwegian Labour Party
Portugal - Socialist Party
San Marino - Party of Socialists and Democrats
Slovakia - Direction - Social Democracy
Spain - Spanish Socialist Workers' Party
South Africa - African National Congress
Switzerland - Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
>> Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
>> poorer people to have certain basics.
>
> Funny and all this time I thought that socialism essentially attempts to put
> EVERYONE on the same economic level with the exception of those holding the
> reins of power.
>
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven loves the idea of supporting people who would murder him for
>>> his own values. And he is strange enough not to even understand that.
>>>
>>> If you're going to support a penny ante louse (and we're forced to do
>>> that whether we like it or not - you might actually read some of the
>>> writings of Lyndon Johnson where he expressed complete surprise that
>>> you could buy off some of the world's worst dictators rather cheaply)
>>> you might as well get one that will actually support you and not one
>>> who wants to destroy the world.
>>
>> The problem with this is when they look good now (such as the
>> mujahideen in Afghanistan, supported by both political parties
>> since they were doing a nice job of stopping the Soviets) but then
>> a few years later they turn out not to be such good guys (bin
>> Laden, indirectly the Taleban).
>
> Pete, if you're going to comment on these things at least know something
> about it. The Mujahadeen were not "a" group but a loose association of a lot
> of groups. The Taliban were only one that actually worked to overthrow
> everyone else while the rest of the Mujahadeen's members worked to defeat
> the Soviets. Pretending that this was a single entity is completely
> incorrect.
>
>>> Liberals supported Stalin to the point where they printed complete
>>> and utter lies in the New York Times about the great life under
>>> Stalin. And virtually every tin horn lunatic that had the
>>> intelligence to quote socialist propaganda since then has been
>>> supported without question by Liberals here.
>>
>> There is a difference between communism and socialism. It doesn't help
>> that communists tend to claim they're socialists because it sounds
>> nicer, but there is a difference. Then there is the issue of government on
>> top of that.
>
> Indeed, but as some have said, most socialisms that managed to obtain a way
> to retain power were no better than communism in the long run.
Seems like Sweden has been run by Socialists (or rather, the Social
Democratic Worker's Party) for years.
And I seem to recall that our good friends in the United Kingdom have been
lead by the Labour Party (whose political ideology is one of democratic
socialism). In fact, the Labour Party's official European Parliament
affiliation is with the Party of European Socialists, and international
affiliation is with the Socialist International.
Other major European and U.S. allies affiliated with the Socialist
International are currently governing:
Austria - Social Democratic Party of Austria
Belgium - Socialist Party
Estonia - Social Democratic Party
Hungary - Hungarian Socialist Party
Italy - Democrats of the Left & Italian Democratic Socialists
(coalition under Olive Tree)
Lithuania - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party
Netherlands - Labour Party
New Zealand - New Zealand Labour Party
Norway - Norwegian Labour Party
Portugal - Socialist Party
San Marino - Party of Socialists and Democrats
Slovakia - Direction - Social Democracy
Spain - Spanish Socialist Workers' Party
South Africa - African National Congress
Switzerland - Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
>> Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
>> poorer people to have certain basics.
>
> Funny and all this time I thought that socialism essentially attempts to put
> EVERYONE on the same economic level with the exception of those holding the
> reins of power.
>
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash