if I agree with his policies, too long winded and he sounds a bit extremist, here's a summary:

-"cut in quarter the military bugdet" to spend the savings on beautifying america's cities and creating national forest parks to offset pollution, give people places to relax etc
- free health care, payed for from "compulsory national insurance". But if you don't work, no insurance, nothing for you, you lazy person, "same as what france, canada, sweden and britain have"
- policy of "gradual disarmament", beginning with people who are found carrying guns in cars and on city streets- guns taken and destroyed, each time, every time. more police, and police frequently searching citizens for guns, not an automatic offence to be found with one, only an offence to refuse to surrender it for destruction, says there should be fewer impulse-murders and robberies, good people will be able to go out at night anywhere, enjoy the cities without fear, relatively safe at night "like in italy or spain" in a few short years
- working day to be maximum of eight hours, to support family life, "no more latch-key kids" etc, maximum six days a week = "48 hour maximum working week"- less stress, less junkfood and drug taking, more time for family.
- confiscation of substandard "slum-lord property", replaced with communally owned schemes, tougher and swifter laws against causing nuisance to neighbours, special community police with power to enforce immediate financial penalties for nuisance
-free "travel cards" for workers - why pay to go to work? Once in each direction each day, using electronic verification system on subways and buses and trains, as in germany
- ten percent tax bands for lower incomes, forty percent over 60,000, and up to 80 percent for income above 100,000 dollars; same rates applied to capital gains. This will discourage single-living, raise the revenue to renew america, make americans more similar and so feel closer to one another
-don't pay tax on the business done in america? The you are not allowed to trade in america. No more "free rides" for big companies.
-fixed tax rates across the states, "abolition of tax-incentive schemes": no more race to the bottom to try to get companies to Headquarter in a particular state.
-"revocation of tax-exempt status" for all religious organisations: means that religion will be a less attractive vehicle for "paramilitary and money-making groups".

I think his logic is a bit simplistic, but i've tried to re-say what he said maybe I get it wrong, but america won't work like this I think so, and of course no chance of winning in the forseeable future, regardless

Last Edited on 13-Sep-2008 4:22 PM

I am guessing that you come from a formerly communist country, but were too young back then to fully appreciate why it didn't work.
The system we have here needs some fine tuning, but not a major overhaul.

If I were two generations younger, and still essentially me, I would join The American Communist Party, which was concerned with the poor, living wages, workplace sategty, and social reform for other points critical to America. Since the party was full of artists and actors, it was not the party of censorship, but rather thought it could have a positive relationship with creative people.

Of course the right-wingers tried to kill this party/movement.

The closest we have know are The Greens, whose points are more current, relavent and more more progressive. We just need better candidates. It's hard, long work, but third parties are the way to go.

Still, I feel pretty good about the fact that I am voting for Obama. In answer to Jo, I've starting stetching some ideas why.

it's great to have another multiple party thinker on this board.

Last Edited on 16-Sep-2008 5:55 AM

But still, why does these west europeans mean communism, when none of them were ever communist? This is very strange - is everything that is not from us "communist"?

Last Edited on 17-Sep-2008 1:10 PM

Last Edited on 17-Sep-2008 1:32 PM

Violence brings back violence.

Last Edited on 17-Sep-2008 4:28 PM

"My idea of communism is taking away the civil liberties of people and running every aspect of their lives. The economics of it is socialism. Socialism + violence = communism. You can vote a socialist out of office, communists never leave."

TAKING AWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES: The Bush administration at unprecendated levels, one overt example with huge implications being the Patriot Act.

RUNNING EVERY ASPECT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES: Bush adminastration, McCain, Palin, etc. (Who can marry whom, efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade, rigidly controlled school curriculums, religious fundamentalism, controlling the press.)

THE ECONOMICS OF IT ARE SOCIALISM: As in bailing out huge risky companies in a suppossed "free market"?

VIOLENCE: Hmmm... Need I say more?

YOU CAN VOTE A SOCIALIST OUT OFFICE BUT COMMUNISTS NEVER LEAVE.

I guess we will soon find out.

I always thought you were a closet pro-lifer, it is the one issue I have never seen you mention here. Could I have been wrong?

But I wouldn't call them communists, since some communists, especially in America, have been very progressive and humane.

I would call their ideologies and policies, more specifically, TOTALITARIAN.

The key in reducing the vast majority of abortions is smart, informed, honest sex education.

Not futile lectures in abstinence (hello Bristol!) or laws that force shamed girls into dark alleys where they themselves might die.

Real sex education is about biology and society. It will work for most people. Those it doesn't work for need to be able to have options and a choice.

On a personal and societal level it is very complicated , but as a legal issue it is not. I am absolutely pro-choice.

As I write, I wonder if someone might experience what you are saying and then, after connecting with the Republicans, begin to believe their other talking points and issues.

We all have moral contradictions, but to me this one seems so huge.

Last Edited on 17-Sep-2008 9:33 PM

The thing that gets me however, is the judgement placed on the motivations for anyone thinking like I do. It doesn't seem to be enough just to disagree,even strongly. An attempt always has to be made to de-humanize the opponent first. 25 years ago, the Religious Right were accused of making their points that way. Those that they were accusing are now using the same tactics. There is no tactical difference between the Moral Majority of the 80's, and Democracy Now today. They have become what they once fought against.

What do you think of Charles Rangel, after 40 years in congress, the man who chairs ways and means(writes our tax laws), not paying taxes and trying to blame it on his wife?
He had FIVE rent control apartments. How is that? Yet, every two years he runs unapposed and unquestioned. All he has to do is blame it on the republicans, and basically he can go on without any accountability to the community.
He is the perfect example of what is wrong with places like Harlem,...and Compton.

"The talking points of the left dominate the schools, so they get a head start."

I am a career educator and a parent of school-age child. I can tell you with absolute certainty that he official curriculum is determined by the very conservative "No Child Left Behind" program. Schools should be full of wonderment and critical thinking. Schools are not.

"The mention of the war makes me think of the same point, how can someone be against the death penalty, but support abortion?"

Yes, this and the reverse are the timeless questions.

"Back then there was a peace movement saying exactly the same things you are now."

The movement of the 60s was correct. There is still a peace movement, but the right-wing dumbed-down media doesn’t cover it.

"There are truly evil, oppressive regimes out there who are only limited by whatever restraints we (the U.S) place on them."

Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way, as we knew before it started from Hans Blix and UN inspectors. Unfortunately, the US is now seen as one of these oppressive regimes. Who will impose those “restraint?”

"Doesn't Putin basically trying to reclaim the former soviet block countries scare you? . ."

Megalomaniac empires with nuclear weapons would scare anyone in their right mind. I regret that I live in one of the countries most likely to push the button.

I want leadership who can diffuse and disarm not build more weapons and start more wars.

"The thing that gets me however, is the judgment placed on the motivations for anyone thinking like I do."

Honestly, it is not judgment, but cognitive dissonance.

"An attempt always has to be made to de-humanize the opponent first."

I’m not sure where I was dehumanizing you.

"There is no tactical difference between the Moral Majority of the 80's, and Democracy Now today.:

There are many differences. One, Democracy Now, uses investigative reporting and facts.

"Where was your compassion for the kids (and the women) of Iraq ten years ago?"

I was actively involved in protests of Clinton's sanctions. Before the Bush years of total lie-spewing ignorant insanity, the Democrats and Republicans were pretty similar, as demonstrated by the widespread deaths from the sanctions of vital medicines.

"And Compton? Every single problem there is a direct result of a generation of 100% Democratic policies and control."

The American government, Democrats and Republicans, are complicit in terrible policies. Affordable and subsidized housing should have been developed in middle class neighborhoods. Public schools should have been funded equitably and generously. After hundreds of years of human slavery, rape, and abuse, there should have been concrete material and educational reparations. The American Corporation has not done enough to right its wrongs.

"There is nothing but negative re-enforcement of every stereotype in the book thrust upon the people of those communities, by the community leaders . . . "

All positive change has come from communities and their leaders, especially historically. Having worked with several organizations, I can assure you that you are the one stereotyping here. Community organizers are a very ideologically diverse bunch.

"He is the perfect example of what is wrong with places like Harlem,...and Compton."

I don't understand the connection you are drawing between Rangel not paying taxes with "what is wrong" with Harlem and Compton? Please explain.

I was referring to world warII, not vietnam.

I was not accusing you, specifically of de-humanizing me, but stating that it is the norm in every discussion for the far left(which you are a part of) to go beyond the specifics of their points, and interject moral judgements against whomever they are debating.

A Charles Rangel in a more politically mixed district would have been voted out of office years ago. His district does not have two party representation, and therefore his accountability is nonexistent. He has millions stockpiled in campaign funds, to even scare off a primary opponent.

You don't even think two parties are enough, don't you see the problem with only having one?

I think there are too many people in the world, and it is very unresponsible to have many children. People should use birth control, so that they don't need to use abortion. But trouble is that priests (who only have sex with children) do not know what they are talking about. So they say you must not use condoms, that condoms don't stop aids, that you mustn't have anal sex (but its OK for them, right?), that people should wait to be married.
But people do not want to marry the first person they meet. They do not want to have parents say who they should marry. And yet they cannot wait until they are 18 to start using their equipment, which is ready at 13/14.

So you get babies that people don't want.

Whose fault is it that there is abortion? It is fault of anyone who says you should not use condoms, or that you must only have sex, er.... through the front door.
Abortion= fault of churches

Last Edited on 23-Sep-2008 8:33 PM

Are you suggesting the existence of condoms is what makes teenagers think about sex?

Do we force our kids to lie to us, plague them with guilt and put them in danger? Or talk about the complexities: what is natural, what is dangerous, what is respectful, what they may or may not be ready for. How to prevent something from going wrong. Who to talk with if something does go wrong.

Ask yourself this: When you are sexually active do you use a condom, "pull out," or just hope for the best? I don't really want to know your answer, but I would be interested in knowing if you think condoms are innately bad. And, if not, at what age do they become appropriate?

How honest do you think we should be, or not be, about human sexuality? And the biological curiosity -- okay intense obsessive urges -- of most teenagers? How can we help protect young woman who also have these urges but different equipment?

Sorry, I forgot to add summary:

Abortion = fault of churches (see above)

Last Edited on 25-Sep-2008 1:11 AM