Who Would've Thought That Africa Knew How To Clean Up The Mess Of Socialism...?

I know, I know, but in the overall scheme of things it hasn't moved that far. I was just intrigued that you were content to characterise a country still firmly in the grip of one-party communist rule as "reborn".

 

Pfffffffft. Did I say that "socialism yet to come can somehow be to blame"? Get real.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/sugarcoating_socialism_the_fre.html

 

If that was not your implication, would you kindly explain what the relevance was of pointing out that the long conservative era in France may soon be drawing to a close? (I fervently hope you're right, by the way.)

 

We've had presidents who were essentially socialist. Just because we don't call something "socialism" does not mean that it does not meet the criteria for socialism. That is not to say that socialism is the end-all and be-all of evil, but it has played a role in the downfall of our country--perhaps as much as capitalism has. Again, I don't believe it's the system. Rather, I believe it is the honesty or the corrupted state of the leaders under either system that causes the issues within the system.

 

For the umpteenth time, you're wrong again. It's becoming tiresome pointing out your mistakes:

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/monopolism.htm

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/sweatshops/

See "sweat shops" above...

Such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Vietnam-WORKING-CONDITIONS.html

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-socialism-causes-pollution/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=5251

http://www.themoreyoudig.com/?tag=china-strip-mining[/quote]

 

"Just because we don't call something "socialism"..."

I get the distinct impression that would be a very rare oversight on this forum. Incidentally, if there's ever been a US president who could be described as socialist in any meaningful sense of the word, you'd be going back decades at the very least.

 

I didn't say it was drawing to a close. I said that more socialism may be on the way...

 

By "more socialism" you mean a return to socialism after a decade-long gap? Or will Hollande be carrying on the work of the socialist regional councillors who have single-handedly brought France to its knees, as the conservative President, conservative Prime Minister and conservative National Assembly looked on helplessly?

 

Just because a president is far in the past does not mean that his policies are also long gone.

 

The problem the Right has with the Socialism label is that they call everything that regulates businesses, protects consumers, supports workers, gives average people a voice in the system, or just annoys the wealthy Socialism. I think if you actually went and looked up the term Socialism, you wouldn't find any of these practices as necessary components of Socialism. Especially to the degree they are actually practiced in this country. The way the Right should define their use of Socialism if they wanted to be true to how they actually identify it would be as anything that doesn't completely further the position of the wealthiest in society. At least that would be closer to the truth.

 

Socialists will never admit to their ultimate goals because if they did (and had to defend the ideology) people would run from it. Instead, they use insideous, veiled tactics & call it "progressive". Heck, just ask moen- He won't even admit to being a socialist!

 

Woke up Monday morning and decided you'd come and take a shot at me eh? Well, shake off that hangover and evacuate that Santorum and lets get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuumble!