I guess I\'ll split this up into two...
Jumpman, Canada is a democracy, and they have a mixed economy, just like the US. While they exhibit slightly more socialist qualities, they are not a socialist country. As far as my personal definition, yes I consider redistribution of wealth socialism, but I would argue that the US is more socialist than Canada, and I\'ve done some research:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5516.3835.0.0Over the past couple of years, U.S. officials have cried foul over Vladimir Putin’s state-orchestrated takeovers of the private sector—repeatedly criticizing him for grabbing oil and energy companies and military manufacturers. But in a way you have to give Putin credit. At least he seized companies that boosted government revenues. Fannie and Freddie have the potential to become a black hole sucking up hundreds of billions of tax dollars.
Is that what you democrats consider a good investment? Yes I know Bush pushed for the bill as well, but as I\'ve stated, he\'s not exactly my favorite person, and hardly a traditional conservative.
You did dodge the question the first time, but answered it the second time. If I have dodged any questions, please lay them out and I will answer them as best I can.
Examples of socialist states:
USSR - do I even need to get into this?
China - yes they are on the verge of being the world\'s superpower, but how do their citizen\'s fare? Personal rights are an afterthought there... one child per family, censorship, government controls the media and internet over there, not to mention they lead the world in capital punishment. Yikes! You may like that kind of life, but I certainly don\'t.
Cuba - and here are their feelings on human rights... torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, extra-judicial executions.
Laos - yay! their economy is funded by drugs!
The point is there\'s a lot less communist states than there used to be, and for good reason, it doesn\'t work. China may be the exception, but at what cost?
Eiksirf -
when I say liberals I\'m referring to the people, not the ideology. Ron Paul\'s economic ideas are very liberal, but not his social ideas. This is probably more of mistake on my part for lumping liberals into one category. I like to correct people when they call Bush and McCain conservatives because their not, they\'re neocons, which is pretty much the same thing as a democrat. I should just cut out the middle man and call it for what they are, republicrats. Because no matter who wins this election, I lose.
