Comments Posted By MlR
Displaying 11 To 17 Of 17 Comments
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1780
For an above poster:
There you'll find the majority of 'Social-Democratic' European Parties.
All self-proclaimed and accurately described socialists, who would all love to use the state to enforce economic equality.
Comment Posted By MlR On 9.10.2008 @ 21:52
You've got your definitions wrong, Rick. Although the Marxists tried to own the title as the real 'socialists,' it's simply a variant of the latter phenomenom. Socialism is redistribution, almost always forced. It predates Leninist-Marxism's focus on a command economy (which is itself not Marxist either, because Marx himself laid down no clear economic plans or vision of what a Marxist society would look like, since these developments were to naturally assert themselves during the predetermined eventual evolution/revolution). It's semantics, but deserves to be said since you're making such a point of playing them yourself (in my opinion wrongly).
Obama, like American liberals, is definitely a socialist. That he isn't a Leninist-Marxist may be reassuring, but not too much so. Obama's view of capitalism distorts it to the point where it no longer resembles itself and deserves to be called another name.
Altogether though, I respect your writings greatly.
Comment Posted By MlR On 9.10.2008 @ 21:47
You're also wrong about the South Vietnamese population wanting us to leave by the early 1970s. After Hue and assorted massacres, they knew what was coming. The general fear was they weren't ready to hack it on their own, and they weren't.
Comment Posted By MlR On 21.07.2008 @ 20:17
Wrong Rick. Nixon was a Republican. This will remain Bush's war regardless.
Comment Posted By MlR On 21.07.2008 @ 20:15
Mr. Moran, for how it describes how I feel as well, I might as well have written that. Like you, I've also become a strong supporter of Fred Thompson simply by default.
Unfortunately, those formerly known as RINOs have taken over the Republican Party (which, I guess, makes us the new RINOs). Even worse, the RINOs themselves aren't even great candidates.
We've basically sacrificed most of our domestic agenda...for the War on Terror. Now, I'm far from a peacenik (in fact, I'd say that at this point we're basically managing a pretend war, with all the rhetoric but none of the follow-through). I'm also not in denial about the roughness of the world. For those reasons, although I sometimes salivate at his domestic positinos, I'm not about to go for Ron Paul as anything but a protest vote. Besides, he has little chance of winning anyway (but imagine the face of Washingtoniennes if he did?).
Yet, I'm also not about to fork over almost our entire domestic agenda (a la Nixon) for a decades-long "war" effort to spread Democracy to the Middle East - the most backward region in the entire world. THIS is what the Republicans have got? THIS is why I should vote Republican? We're going to protect the United States by making the world safe for 'democracy' (kept loosely defined, of course, so as not to make it seem as stupid as it really is...it's easy to hold elections, once)? Now where have we heard this before?
Naive idiots to both sides of me.
Comment Posted By MlR On 28.12.2007 @ 12:35
PROPOSED BLOGBURST FOR FRED THOMPSON
Oops. Know = no, obviously.
Comment Posted By MlR On 25.12.2007 @ 16:26
I know longer blog, but I'll spread the word to some of those I read.
Comment Posted By MlR On 25.12.2007 @ 16:25
