Obama '08?

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Suffice it to say Michael [Moore] is a nut...

The actual manifesto of the Labour Party reads as follows:

Quote:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The actual manifesto of the Labour Party reads as follows:

Quote:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Great. That all sounds good. Tolerance and respect does not mean we all should be the same, however, and that we should not have the right to reap the rewards of our own labor without the government confiscating it for the good of all, does it?

System of government seems to be the underlying issue that is bubbling under the surface of just about all the threads on this forum. We are all socialists to a minimal extent, if you wish to be technical. The debate goes on as to what extent we wish to indulge ourselves in it, minimally or totally.

Walter, I have noticed you surface just about every time I mention the term, "socialist." What is going on about that? Maybe the discussion of this term is not so inappropriate considering Obama's politics?

Walter, I have noticed you surface just about every time I mention the term, "socialist." What is going on about that? Maybe the discussion of this term is not so inappropriate considering Obama's politics?

okie wrote:

Walter, I have noticed you surface just about every time I mention the term, "socialist." What is going on about that? Maybe the discussion of this term is not so inappropriate considering Obama's politics?

Obama, like most Democrats, would be in the center(-right) here, like e.g. in our conservative party, the Christian-Democrats.

But he definately doesn't have a lot, of any, social-democratic ideas - not to speak of socialist themes.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Walter, I have noticed you surface just about every time I mention the term, "socialist." What is going on about that? Maybe the discussion of this term is not so inappropriate considering Obama's politics?

Obama, like most Democrats, would be in the center(-right) here, like e.g. in our conservative party, the Christian-Democrats.

But he definately doesn't have a lot, of any, social-democratic ideas - not to speak of socialist themes.

Good thing his isn't running in Germany. Here in America he is to the left of center.

I guess that just goes to show you how phucked up things really are in Old Europe.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

Relax Okie. Swifties and Moore are arbitrary examples of what opposing partisans find out of line. Nothing more. Your defense of swifties, in this instance, is no more valuable than a defense of Moore would be. Neither are important to the point I was trying to make.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

Relax Okie. Swifties and Moore are arbitrary examples of what opposing partisans find out of line. Nothing more. Your defense of swifties, in this instance, is no more valuable than a defense of Moore would be. Neither are important to the point I was trying to make.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

Relax Okie. Swifties and Moore are arbitrary examples of what opposing partisans find out of line. Nothing more. Your defense of swifties, in this instance, is no more valuable than a defense of Moore would be. Neither are important to the point I was trying to make.

And I couldn't not post it.