No, Shodan. A national single-payer health care system (Canadian-style) is not the same thing as nationalizing the health-care industry and creating a system in which doctors are public employees (British-style). And progressive income taxes, even highly progressive and confiscatory taxes, are not the same thing as simply expropriating the rich (Bolshevik-style).
You have clearly a whole other “definition” of the words “socialist and socialism” then we do.
I think you try to sell it as if “socialism” is equal to “communism”.
You also seem to have no understanding of what “social democracy” means.
But this is a discussion outside the OP of this thread.
Salaam. A
Posted by Aldebaran:
Maybe it is, Aldebaran, but I still have to ask: Are you addressing me or Shodan? Which one of us misunderstands these terms?
That little job he has as President…you think that’s less experience than running VERMONT?:rolleyes: Please!
Look, I’m not here to defend W. But saying that being the Governor of Vermont will equate to being a good President is like saying a good paperboy should be put in charge of Hearst. Absurd.
Yeah, the last time had a governor of a small state as president his name was Clinton.
You remember how crappy things were under Clinton compared to Bush right?
Do I ever! The tax hikes, the gun bans, selling secrets to China.
Things were really bad.
Luckily a Republican Congress was there to straighten out the economy.
Huh? Where does Dean’s platform say that? I’m interested because I’ve worked in a closed shop and it imperially pissed me off. (Actually, a Google search for “closed shop” reveals that I didn’t technically work in a closed shop, as they were outlawed in 1947 by the Taft-Hartley Act. What I worked in was a union shop where I had to join the union 5 seconds after signing a contract of employment. Crucial difference. :rolleyes: )
I know it’s a hijack, but I can’t let this pass. He wouldn’t have invaded Iraq and his fiscal policy would have been very different.
As to the OP, a SMARTER President, of course.
yeah, I sure am glad Dubya was able to end the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity we had under Clinton!
Yep, that was funny when the Daily Show said it two years ago and it’s still funny now :rolleyes:
Anyway, a couple of interesting articles from today’s Boston Globe. Look quick, since they start chargin’ after a couple of days.
Last night’s debate transcript.
The issue is silly, I think, and Dean is right that the Dems have a serious problem with low-income whites (although I think it’s nationwide and has a lot to do with values, not Pubbie tricks). But his response ties into a lot of what’s been said here.
“Under” Clinton? Yeah. But not “Because” of Clinton.
Either way, your post is full of beans. Myself and others like me are doing terrific right now.
“Under” Clinton? “During” Clinton, maybe, but not “Because” of Clinton.
Either way, your post is full of beans. Myself and others like me are doing terrific right now.
I think the fundamental problems is that many low-income whites
-
get all their news from teevee and radio
-
embrace racism
The Pubbies have the teevee news and commentary game covered almost completely (witness Craven Broadcasting System’s collapse on the Reagan biopic issue), so their message gets out whereas the Dem message is endlessly spun by their opponents. And the Pubbies have embraced racism, in a covert sort of way, though not so covert that the low-income whites don’t recognize it.
I don’t see the Dems embracing racism, and the DLC is too wishy-washy to go toe-to-toe with the Pubbies for control of the media, so I don’t see much changing.
I suppose, EC, that you can support the contention that a significant chunk of low income whites embrace racism? If so, please do so; if not, please retract. Being, after all, a low-income white meself.