excreationist

What if more than 50% of the public truly like the capitalist system? (e.g. where doctors and highly qualified people get paid more than average workers - unlike the situation in Cuba.)
Would your revolutionary group just ignore the majority (who kind of express their views during elections - though it is skewed due to parties keeping campaign funders happy) and impose your views on them?

Ion

What Dean can do is to not start a wasteful war costing the American taxpayers $67 billion in three months, and counting.

Here was Bush's opportunity at stimulating the U.S. economy, but he is better at making up a war that is wasteful to all, except to some special interests (i.e.: Exxon, Bechtel, Halliburton).

Ion

The capitalist system would be great without 'free enterprise' a-la Bush (i.e.: 'free enterprise' in 'liberating' Iraq, for example).

Just market competition.

I would love it.

Krieger

A revolution can not succeed unless it has popular support. The American people have been instructed to like capitalism (by the media, religion, schools, etc). The duty of all communists is to help organize and create the mass movement, which will overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie (the business owners/industrialists - the ruling class in capitalism). The bourgeoisie reduces the value of the masses' labor in order to gain profit, while the masses (the proletariat) get subsistence wages in return, which they need in order to survive. Once a large enough portion of the proletariat realize how and why they are being exploiting by the bourgeoisie, it is doubtful that anyone - besides the bourgeoisie themselves and the most fierce reactionaries - will oppose the revolution.

Optional

Ah hah... If the people don't WANT revolution, then they must be REEDUCATED until they DO want revolution... Reeducated quite, er, vigorously in some cases I imagine, hah? *grin* Or maybe not, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. It's just the usual way of Revolutionary Comittees.

So, yer a pinko commie russky luver, huh? The observation I have then is that there is quite literally no candidate that could possibly be elected that would live up to your standards, as the revolution, when it comes, will BE a revolution, not an election. And the question I have, then, is why do you even bother to dabble outside of theoretical politics? Keeping up with the election news will do nothing to help YOUR cause, so why bother?

-me

Loren Pechtel

I don't see anything that Clinton made a mess of. To me, a politician deals with problems that arise but doesn't rock the boat when it's doing well. By that standard, Clinton was a pretty good president.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by excreationist
Saddam would have been partly responsible - he could have diverted some of the money he spends on building palaces to feed the starving - and he could have met the demands that the economic sanctions were about (if there were any).

Partially? I think he bears just about all the burden. The Kurdish areas operated under the same finances but no Saddam--and they weren't starving.

He might have been convinced it was a chemical weapons factory or something.

I see nothing to preclude a pharmaceutical factory *ALSO* being a chemical weapons factory. The fact that a facility has a legitimate civilian purpose doesn't mean it doesn't *ALSO* have a military purpose. Thus identifying the target as civilian doesn't prove it wasn't a valid target.

The reality is the US military can kill any target they can find other than those *DEEP* underground. Thus if you want to keep your important targets safe you have to keep us from seeing them. Thus any country who figures they might come into conflict with us will hide any important targets they build. Keeping us from seeing something major being built is *VERY* hard--thus such things are going to look like something else.
Thus most any important non-governmental target is going to look like a non-target. Thus if we shoot at a single high-value target it most likely will look civilian.

dcwolf

Also luckily for you, I and others here, have spoon-fed you information you need to make an informed decision. You pasted one link (the Colby article) in your post on Dean's environmental policy, and it of course was negative. Every complaint in that article has two sides to it, but you wouldn't know it by reading just his article. And that is the only negative piece I've found on Dean's environmental policy, so I got upset when I saw that was the only link included in your post. That's the essence of your spindoctoring.

RED DAVE

I find the hostility of Democrats, especially Deanies (get it: Deanies, Greenies -- whatever) fascinating.

Your party is offering us a bunch of third raters, neoliberals and out-and-out conservatives, all from a party that supported both of Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and you're pissed off that independents won't support your candidate?

You should be running from the Democrats, yea verily, as from a burning house.

RED DAVE

Krieger

Yep, and the Dean supporters attack the only liberal Democrat in the race - Dennis Kucinich - as being a "New Ager" and a "red flag socialist". Well, we both know the latter is false, and I couldn't give a shit about the former.