Vendit--Your citations that discuss the elements of Communism and Socialism do not warrant attack by me. In fact, I agree with everything in those descriptions.
But I would like to address one reference in that discourse:
<<"(6) The intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily usurps personal freedoms during its expansion." >>
I of course agree with that statement. But tell me:
Which party wants to control the film, literature, television, radio, and art genres to ensure conformance with some religious doctrine?
Which party wants to control/limit/prevent a woman's right to choose to have an abortion?
Now, you went on to say:
<<"Greg I am always amazed that when a modern day democrat is confronted with the facts and discovers that he is being lead by and shares the beliefs of the socialist party these democrats go into a state of denial and back peddling. They begin to describe themselves in terms as "moderates" or "new democrats". ">>
How can you review the past eight years of the Clinton Administration and call it socialism? Have not welfare rolls declined to their lowest levels in decades? Has not capitalism thrived in the last eight years? The long term bull market has continued, low inflation and simultaneously low unemployment[a direct slap in the face of the near Deistic Phillip's curve], Budget surpluses, tax revenues as a % of GDP at near record LOW levels. Embracing REPUBLICAN free trade policy, NAFTA and GATT were passed.
The above events do not occur in a state controlled economy. Surely you are aware of that are you not?
Who besides the fringe elements have ever considered the past administration to be "socialistic"? Politicians on both sides of the aisle have called Clinton a liar, a philanderer, a cheat, a thief, but not a "Socialist".
In 1992, when Clinton was elected, many in the business community warned that bad times loomed ahead, that Clinton was an "enemy" of business and that the nation would suffer through the 1990s.
Well, Vendit, all I can say is this, with respect to the business community's 1992 perception of Clinton:
"With 'enemies' like Bill Clinton, who needs friends?"
<<"Democrats hardly ever address a message like the one that I posted above to you but rather attack the messenger in an attempt to distract from the message.">>
I hope you feel that I did not engage in personal attacks but rather identified substantive issues to support my disagreement with your charges and presented them in a cogent manner.
TG |
