How Many Communists Are There In The U.S. Government?

[Lonewulf]

A better analogy than juggling might be asking if a guy who kisses another guy is gay. While one kiss may not be enough for you to feel comfortable applying the label permanently, there is no denying that the action is a homosexual action. (please assume a romantic kiss for those pedants who want to tell me about all kinds of alternatives.)Of course, this does tend to assume that there are only heterosexuals or homosexuals...

Tip: There aren't.

This is a political issue, and in politics you need to allow for a little rhetorical license.Yet heaven forbid someone correctly labels red-baiting as red-baiting, right?

[Texas]

At least with European parties, it's clear what their platform is. When I'd vote for the Christian-democrat party, I know they'll bring that Christian ideology into their ideas about abortion or euthanasia; and I know they'll not let the jobless homeless too, buut they won't give them a dime more either. That's all in their party program. When I'd vote for the Labour party, I know they're in favour of giving the jobless a bit more so their kids won't fall into the same poverty trap, and that they're in favour of the current liberalized abortion and euthanasia rules.

Do you know that when you vote? Do your parties have a program at all? With 10 parties up in Parliament, I can at least vote for one that quite closely matches my preferences. Can you say the same with only a choice of 2?

Of course we do. One of the major functions of the conventions is to review the party platform, add or remove planks, revise others and vote on the finished product. Each party has its platform prominently displayed on their websites.

[Rufo]

Of course, this does tend to assume that there are only heterosexuals or homosexuals...

Tip: There aren't.
Which, ironically, shows exactly how apt the analogy is.

[a_unique_person]

If anyone would like to make the case that Maxine Waters is not a communist, I'd be happy to hear it. Note that continuing to make ad hominem arguments doesn't get you any closer. :)

I knew I didn't want to look in this thread. I knew that it wouldn't be a joke, but I hoped. :(

[Rufo]

I knew I didn't want to look in this thread. I knew that it wouldn't be a joke, but I hoped. :(
It's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure it will be more rewarding if you choose to view it as a joke.

[Texas]

Of course, this does tend to assume that there are only heterosexuals or homosexuals...

Tip: There aren't.

Yet heaven forbid someone correctly labels red-baiting as red-baiting, right?

Crying 'Red-Baiting" is just an attempt to quell debate. Maxine Waters is at least far to the left of the American political mainstream as Berrie Sanders, an avowed socialist, John Conyers, the former House member Cynthia Mckinney, avowed socialist and former congressman Ron Dellums and many others. We have had full blown socialists in Congress in significant numbers since FDR's administration. There is no need for a witch-hunt since they are well known and are proud of their views. Are they Communists at heart, I have no way of knowing but it would be my guess that more than a few are and for political reasons hold down their instincts and stay just far enough within the outer boundaries of US political mores to be electable. Every once in a while one of them steps a bit outside those boundaries with comments like Waters made. To call recognizing that fact "red-baiting" is as bad as what the left claims McCarthy was doing.

[WildCat]

Do you know that when you vote? Do your parties have a program at all? With 10 parties up in Parliament, I can at least vote for one that quite closely matches my preferences. Can you say the same with only a choice of 2?
There is far greater variety among individual members of the Republicans and Democrats than in European, parliamentary parties. There are some Republicans that act more like Democrats, and vice versa. So mayne the official party platform may not be to your liking, but there's probably some members of that party that are.

[Mycroft]

Of course, this does tend to assume that there are only heterosexuals or homosexuals...

Tip: There aren't.

Tip: This doesn't assume any such thing, and in trying to nit-pick, you miss the point.

The analogy works just fine. Just as there is a wide spectrum between purely homosexual and purely heterosexual, there is just as wide a wide spectrum between purely communist and purely capitalist. The extreme examples on either side only exist in the abstract





Yet heaven forbid someone correctly labels red-baiting as red-baiting, right?

Red baiting in the McCarthy era was a whole different animal than red-baiting today.

In the McCarthy era being labeled a communist could lead to loss of employment, destruction of your career, blacklisting, being hauled up in front of a senate investigative committee, or even imprisonment. It was a big deal, and calling someone a communist was a real threat.

There is nothing comparable in todays world.

Today, in the United States, you're free to be a communist if you want. You can speak about it in public, write books, go on television if any program will have you, start a pro-communist blog...whatever you want.

It's not the same thing any more. There is no threat to being labeled as a communist. You won't get blacklisted, nobody is going to investigate you, nothing happens.

There is no such thing as red-baiting anymore. Fifty years ago labeling someone a communist carried a real threat of personal destruction. Today, it's just a label like any other.

[Mycroft]

Because she doesn't espouse Communist philosophy or ideals, nor is she (as far as I'm aware) a member of any communist organization or network.

Nationalization of an industry != communism.

In itself? No, but it's certainly a step in that direction.


Bzzt...Nope.

You think the term "red-baiting" is "manufactured?"

From this I can only assume you're rather ignorant of American history.

You're right. I was until I did some reading today.

Still, I think your use of the term is dishonest and hypocritical.

The truth is being labeled a communist today doesn't carry any real threat like it did in the McCarthy era. Being labeled as a communist today is no different from being labeled a libertarian or a greenie. It is not "red-baiting" in that there is no threat behind it.

You're abusing the term to demonize an opponent and to stifle debate.


And we're back to "Cleon's a commie," are we?

Get a new shtick. It's old.

Geez, if you prefer the term "Marxist" then just say so, but yes, you are.

Maybe being a communist is kinda like being a red-neck where you can be one without realizing it and you need some Jeff Foxworthy type character to come around and point out the clues in your life.

Here's one for you:

If you went to college (PSU 1998) and formed your own chapter of Young Socialists to have like minded people to talk to, then you might be a communist!

I'd provide a link, but I don't want to get into trouble with rule 8. I'm sure a little quality time with google would yield dozens more.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Want more proof of the out of touchness of Usonians? Without realising it, one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Dreher) reinvented it and gave it -- what can only be described as --a very silly name (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754).

"Americans" is the proper demonym and Dreher writes for my local newspaper and I lived in Germany during a CDU administration so want to quibble with saying his Crunchy Conservatism is the same as Christian Democracy.

Dreher was a Catholic when he first came up with the idea, but his manifesto is less politicized Catholicism than a melange of social conservatism and hippy values* at least as I read his editorials (I've never read the book).

*Maybe family values meets farmers market would be a better description but I'm leaving it as is above.

[Corsair 115]

You know, I thought the whole communist thing expired along with the old Soviet Union... it's weird to still see it being brought up.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Crying 'Red-Baiting" is just an attempt to quell debate. Maxine Waters is at least far to the left of the American political mainstream as Berrie Sanders, an avowed socialist, John Conyers, the former House member Cynthia Mckinney, avowed socialist and former congressman Ron Dellums and many others.
Before I comment, do you mean socalist negatively?

We have had full blown socialists in Congress in significant numbers since FDR's administration. There is no need for a witch-hunt since they are well known and are proud of their views. Are they Communists at heart, I have no way of knowing but it would be my guess that more than a few are and for political reasons hold down their instincts and stay just far enough within the outer boundaries of US political mores to be electable. Every once in a while one of them steps a bit outside those boundaries with comments like Waters made. To call recognizing that fact "red-baiting" is as bad as what the left claims McCarthy was doing.

... which was?

[SezMe]

Actually, the basic premise of communism - that one does not own what one produces - is evil.
Again with the labels, BPSCG. You seem to think labeling Waters as a communist (should I captialize that?) has informative or debate value. It doesn't as demonstrated by this very thread. Now you want to label communism as "evil" (I'm surprised you didn't capitalize that) as if that conveys some useful information. It does not.

Does labeling something as "evil" further the dialog? What if one is not a Christian and does not recognize "evil" as a useful descriptor? What are the implications of something being evil. I must say, BPSCG, that such black-and-white thinking should be beneath you.

Free society is impossible without guaranteed property rights.
That's nonsense. The USA native Americans did not recognize "property rights" and yet had a free society. There are other examples. Your assertions is, by this one example alone, wrong.

[SezMe]

Start drilling at home? We know the Dems won't allow that.
Damn straight. That Democrat Jeb Bush, in cahoots with Shrub, got a bill passed that exempted drilling in Florida coastal waters. That "Dem" Bastaige.

[SezMe]

It's a communist anti-war organization. Click here to buy a Che Guevara t-shirt from their website (http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr007=6dixkinn12.app6a&abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=5651&news_iv_ctrl=1621).
That's it. End of discussion. Selling t-shirts is proof positive of communism. :rolleyes:

[SezMe]

One of the major functions of the conventions is to review the party platform, add or remove planks, revise others and vote on the finished product. Each party has its platform prominently displayed on their websites.
Indeed. And the candidates of both parties routinely ignore these platforms. They are an anachronism of a bygone age. How many people do you think decide their vote based on these platforms? I certainly don't know but I'll take a stab at it: 3 out of over 100 million voters.

[SezMe]

The truth is being labeled a communist today doesn't carry any real threat like it did in the McCarthy era. Being labeled as a communist today is no different from being labeled a libertarian or a greenie. It is not "red-baiting" in that there is no threat behind it.
Yes, there is no explicit threat behind it, but I would argue it still carries perjorative powers. If it didn't why would BPSCG put "Communists" in his thread title and pound on the fact, page after page, that Waters is one?

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's it. End of discussion. Selling t-shirts is proof positive of communism. :rolleyes:

I remember seeing ads back in the 70s or 80s in comic books (or some such printed media) for t-shirts that had a variety of rock bands, sayings, or portraits on them including Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. The best I can recollect it was a for profit organization.

[Darat]

That's it. End of discussion. Selling t-shirts is proof positive of communism. :rolleyes:

Well this (http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/07/prince-harry-with-che-t-shirt.html) well known (at least this side of the pond) communist was seen wearing a Che t-shirt not so long ago.

[mrbaracuda]

I haven't seen the latest polls, but at the last federal elections, the SPD still had a very close call with the CDU; the Linke only got 7%, up from about 4% at the previous elections.

Hessen and Niedersachsen? Or did I miss one since then? Maybe Schleswig-Holstein? Hm. Then again, it's bad enough if they get 1%!

Check www.spd-watch.de if you are interested, I found it amusing to read about the SPD there. :D

First of all, the reforms. The SPD ideas weent further in breaking up the social security system than the CDU was willing to do at that time.

Well they work so far! Yay, unemployed's going down and so on and they're talking about some tax cuts, although it's not 2010.

But Schilly's attempts at turning Germany into a police state are also well noted. I guess he got the inspiration for it in his younger years, when he was a RAF lawyer.

I guess this passed right by me. I guess it's "Ansichtssache". ;)

[gtc]

Darat, the Cubans, Soviets, Chinese and North Koreans all referred to themselves as Communists and were referred to by others as such, right? How would you refer to such a Communist?

I guess rallies should work to silence any groups they don't agree with in their ranks?

And just when I thought these people were actually suggesting they *supported* freedom of speech, here they turn around and prove me wrong.

Freedom of speech does not mean having to give people a (figurative or real) platform to say what they like.

That's nonsense. The USA native Americans did not recognize "property rights" and yet had a free society. There are other examples. Your assertions is, by this one example alone, wrong.

Did they really not recognise property rights? Could any member of a clan group use any item or tool? Even if that was a free society do you have any examples of free societies without property rights that operate at anything above subsistence level?

[mrbaracuda]

Well this (http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/07/prince-harry-with-che-t-shirt.html) well known (at least this side of the pond) communist was seen wearing a Che t-shirt not so long ago.

They should send him back to Afghanistan and tell the Taliban! :p

[mrbaracuda]

Did they really not recognise property rights? Could any member of a clan group use any item or tool? Even if that was a free society do you have any examples of free societies without property rights that operate at anything above subsistence level?

Thought pretty much the same. I assume they didn't think much of land property but like you said tools or horses or whatever belonged to individuals I guess.

[Lonewulf]

Freedom of speech does not mean having to give people a (figurative or real) platform to say what they like.It seems to me to be rather against the spirit, if not the letter, of freedom of speech to claim that others HAVE TO throw out anyone that has a questionable message, or they themselves totally support and follow that message.

It's dishonest, at the very least. At least, from my perspective.

[davefoc]

Nationalizing companies constitutes being a communist?

Wow, then I guess that the airport security industry being nationalized under the Transportation Safety Administration in 2001 marks a precipitous slide into Mao jackets and sowing seeds in snow.

The words "socialism" and "communism" seem to mean something a little different to everybody that uses them, but nationalizing an industry that is not a natural monopoly seems to be a communist action and a socialist action by almost anybody's definition.

Nationalizing the airport screeners was not a good idea and is another example that indicates how deeply flawed the Bush administration was. It is also reasonable to characterize it as communist or socialist by most standard definitions of those words.

It doesn't mean that Bush was a communist. In some ways that would be a complement to him. It would imply that he had some guiding ideology beyond the cronyism, corruption and partisanship that drove his administration.

[Rufo]

I'm not sure why there's any need to go over this again, but there's a great deal of difference between nationalizing an industry being "a step in the direction" of communism and that nationalizing an industry automagically makes someone a communist who (and I might add this was what I objected to in the first place) "espous[es] an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people".

Since no one responded to my previous example, here's another one:

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political ideology. Anarchists wish to completely eliminate government influence, the legal system as it is today and general restrictions put on people by authorities.

This means that anything which furthers that goal, such as decreasing government influence, abolishing a law, or eliminating any restriction put on the population by any authority, can be labeled "an anarchistic action" or "a step in the direction of anarchism". And why not? Surely anarchists would approve of it? Surely they would applaud it? Surely it is a natural part of an anarchistic agenda?

Yet that does not mean that anyone suggesting or supporting such an action is an anarchist. Any politician can wish to abolish laws. Many political ideologies seek to minimize government influence, including liberalism and libertarianism. Many ideologies and political agendas can also influence a politician to remove authoritarian restrictions.

Regardless of what this reminds anyone of, regardless of what it could theoretically be a step in the direction of, and regardless of which of two imaginative absolutes the action is the closest to, suggesting nationalization of an industry does not make someone a communist. And it is incorrect, unfair and stupid to suggest such a person espouses the economic system of the Soviet Union.

Red-baiting? Maybe the term is a bit outdated, and it certainly does not carry the same menacing connotations it once did, but if Lonewulf's definition is correct, then yes, calling Maxine Waters a communist is red-baiting. More importantly, it is wrong.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[volatile]

Hear, hear. I still think my haphazard juggling is a better analogy than your well-reasoned anarchism one, but I'll let that slide under the weight of my hearty applause.

It is utterly baffling that otherwise bright forumites can descend to such depths of absurdity on occasion.

[Lonewulf]

Hear, hear. I still think my haphazard juggling is a better analogy than your well-reasoned anarchism one, but I'll let that slide under the weight of my hearty applause.

It is utterly baffling that otherwise bright forumites can descend to such depths of absurdity on occasion.Don't forget, I'm the same guy that supported the second amendment. As I recall, I was one of those you would consider "absurd" back then.

[BPSCG]

That's it. End of discussion. Selling t-shirts is proof positive of communism. :rolleyes:Well, if they sold these t-shirts (http://www.thoseshirts.com/reagan.html) on their website as well, I'd be inclined to think maybe they weren't a communist organization after all.

But they don't. Funny, why should an organization that is simply an antiwar organization, not a communist one (this we know, our good friend Cleon tells us so) be marketing a t-shirt that prominently features someone who was killed while fighting a guerrilla war to overthrow the government of a foreign country? Why aren't they selling t-shirts of Theodore Roosevelt, who, you recall, won the Nobel Peace Prize for actually brokering a peace treaty and stopping a war? Why don't they sell t-shirts showing Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin, and Anwar Sadat shaking hands at Camp David?

The A.N.S.W.E.R. is, they aren't selling peace; they're selling the communist revolution.

[BPSCG]

Well this (http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/07/prince-harry-with-che-t-shirt.html) well known (at least this side of the pond) communist was seen wearing a Che t-shirt not so long ago....which just goes to show that there's nothing so stupid that royalty won't do it.

Do you think he has any idea who Che Guevara was?

Note: Despite this stupidity, I have to acknowledge that I respect and admire his decision to serve in Afghanistan.

[Darat]

Darat, the Cubans, Soviets, Chinese and North Koreans all referred to themselves as Communists and were referred to by others as such, right? How would you refer to such a Communist?

...snip...

Sorry but I just am not following your line of reasoning, communism is a quite clearly defined ideology and one of its major principles is that it is stateless. That people call themselves something does not always mean that the are what they call themselves.

I still fail to understand how someone advocating a policy that is in fact "anti-communist" means you can draw a conclusions that she could be a communist. It just does not make any sense.

[SezMe]

Jeeeeebus Christ on a pogo stick. I made a sarcastic remark (as denoted by the smilie) about t-shirts that I expected nobody to take seriously and you, BPSCG, take the bait and argue the case? Nooooooo. How low has this discussion gotten?

[Rufo]

Hear, hear. I still think my haphazard juggling is a better analogy than your well-reasoned anarchism one, but I'll let that slide under the weight of my hearty applause.
There's nothing wrong with your analogy. I'm just trying to put the whole thing into as simple terms as possible. Thanks, though. :)

Sorry but I just am not following your line of reasoning, communism is a quite clearly defined ideology and one of its major principles is that it is stateless. That people call themselves something does not always mean that the are what they call themselves.

I still fail to understand how someone advocating a policy that is in fact "anti-communist" means you can draw a conclusions that she could be a communist. It just does not make any sense.
Not sure I want to argue with you since we appear to share the conclusion that it's absurd to call Waters a communist, but quite a few who genuinely believe (and believed) in the stateless ideology of communism did also believe that socialism was a necessary stage for a state to go through before the stateless communistic society became reality. One can be a communist and still support nationalizations for the purpose of going through this stage, and a lot of communists have done exactly this.

However, you are correct in that it is not an inherent part of communistic thinking. For instance, an anarcho-communist could quite strongly oppose such ideas.

[SezMe]

Did they really not recognise property rights? Could any member of a clan group use any item or tool?

I was speaking of property rights in the sense of land ownership. My understanding is that the USA native Americans did not incorporate the concept of land ownership in their society. I did not mean to imply that concept applied all the way down to tool ownership. I do NOT claim to have any understanding of native American cultures beyond the popular literature I have read so if anyone reading this thread has more expertise I would welcome more more insightful comment.

Even if that was a free society do you have any examples of free societies without property rights that operate at anything above subsistence level?
Good question. I recognized when making my post that citing native Americans was a stretch since it reached back over 100 years but I thought it was a valid point. That is, BPSCG made an assertion along the lines of "All crows are black" and I pointed to an example of a white crow which served the purpose of my post which was to refute his assertion. I do not have any expertise to identify any society that meets your criteria. That said, lacking that knowledge does not invalidate the point I was making.

[BPSCG]

Jeeeeebus Christ on a pogo stick. I made a sarcastic remark (as denoted by the smilie) about t-shirts that I expected nobody to take seriously and you, BPSCG, take the bait and argue the case? Nooooooo. How low has this discussion gotten?Sorry - guess my sarcasm-detecting meter is on the fritz again today.

But don't you think it's somehow telling that an organization that is supposedly non-communist and anti-war prominently sells t-shirts heroically depicting a communist guerrilla?

[Darat]

...snip...

Not sure I want to argue with you since we appear to share the conclusion that it's absurd to call Waters a communist, but quite a few who genuinely believe (and believed) in the stateless ideology of communism did also believe that socialism was a necessary stage for a state to go through before the stateless communistic society became reality. One can be a communist and still support nationalizations for the purpose of going through this stage, and a lot of communists have done exactly this.

...snip...

Not a word I disagree with!

But in this specific instance all we have is a vague statement that can be interpreted that she would support in some circumstances that a specific industry be taken over by the government. How anyone from that can conclude someone is (or could be) a communist is what I totally fail to understand.

I'm pretty certain that most people with even only a tenuous grip on the real world would agree that in certain circumstances a government may have to take over an industry.

[Darat]

Sorry - guess my sarcasm-detecting meter is on the fritz again today.

But don't you think it's somehow telling that an organization that is supposedly non-communist and anti-war prominently sells t-shirts heroically depicting a communist guerrilla?

Given his iconic status as a "rebel" no I don't find it telling at all, just as I didn't find it telling that Athena use to sell posters of him.

[BPSCG]

I was speaking of property rights in the sense of land ownership. The enlightenment philosophers weren't. There were far fewer land owners in Locke's time than today, yet Locke recognized that property rights existed among all men, not just land owners. And property rights still exist today, even among non-landowners, else I could go across the street and take my neighbor's car.

My understanding is that the USA native Americans did not incorporate the concept of land ownership in their society. I did not mean to imply that concept applied all the way down to tool ownership. Again, Locke and Jefferson did. All you're saying is that there were some forms of property for which the aboriginals didn't apply the concept of individual ownership.

Maybe they were commies, too... :duck:

Good question. I recognized when making my post that citing native Americans was a stretch since it reached back over 100 years but I thought it was a valid point. That is, BPSCG made an assertion along the lines of "All crows are black" and I pointed to an example of a white crow which served the purpose of my post which was to refute his assertion. Well, no, you pointed to a black crow that had a white spot on him. :rolleyes:

I do not have any expertise to identify any society that meets your criteria. That said, lacking that knowledge does not invalidate the point I was making.That's perilously close to Dustin's claim (it's in someone's sig line) that "Just because something hasn't been proven to be true doesn't mean it isn't true." :duck:

[ddt]

Even if that was a free society do you have any examples of free societies without property rights that operate at anything above subsistence level?

What about the utopian socialists' projects? Owen's New Lanark; the Fourierist Phalansteres.

[mrbaracuda]

Jeeeeebus Christ on a pogo stick. I made a sarcastic remark (as denoted by the smilie) about t-shirts that I expected nobody to take seriously and you, BPSCG, take the bait and argue the case? Nooooooo. How low has this discussion gotten?

Capitalist-baiter! :eek:
Lock on! :czrobo:

[ddt]

Hessen and Niedersachsen? Or did I miss one since then? Maybe Schleswig-Holstein? Hm. Then again, it's bad enough if they get 1%!

Check www.spd-watch.de if you are interested, I found it amusing to read about the SPD there. :D
Amusing reading indeed. What's that with the presidential elections? That's just stupid politicking? But do you really worry the SPD would get revolutionary again? They abandoned that formally with the Godesberger Programm begin 1960s, but in fact the SPD showed not to be a revolutionary party when it voted for the war credits in 1914, and even moreso when Ebert and Noske had some 30,000 of their own voters murdered in 1918/1919, plus the handful of Sparticists. They have never confessed that crime.



Well they work so far! Yay, unemployed's going down and so on and they're talking about some tax cuts, although it's not 2010.
I doubt it's the reforms of the social security system. To quote Clinton: it's the economy stupid.



But Schilly's attempts at turning Germany into a police state are also well noted. I guess he got the inspiration for it in his younger years, when he was a RAF lawyer.
I guess this passed right by me. I guess it's "Ansichtssache". ;)
Of course I'm exaggerating. But Schily was widely criticized for the extent of his "anti-terrorist" legislation proposals.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Darat, the Cubans, Soviets, Chinese and North Koreans all referred to themselves as Communists and were referred to by others as such, right? How would you refer to such a Communist?

I think this is a stupid argument within the context of this thread, but I saw your post as I was getting ready to leave work and now am bandwidth compromised, but before I logged off there did a quick Wiki search that lead me to Communist parties by country. Guess which of the four you listed were/are governed/controlled by the Communist party and the first guess doesn't count.

But don't you think it's somehow telling that an organization that is supposedly non-communist and anti-war prominently sells t-shirts heroically depicting a communist guerrilla?

By this logic any organization or business that sells anything with the Southern Cross on it would automatically be considered racist. Do you consider this to be true?

Just for the record, I consider the Che t-shirts to be stupid, but after I found a Hitler World Tour concert t-shirt with him on the front and "concert dates" on the back listing cancelled invasions of England and Russia on the back in the Nuremburg... yes, that's right, it was 1986 in the Nuremburg Hauptbahnhof, plus my Comic book anecdote above, I don't put any organization or business above selling t-shirts of any nature if they think they'll make a buck that will either feather their nest or help promote their agenda.

I purchased, and will wear at TAM6 a t-shirt I saw advertised in the single issue of Mother Jones I ever purchased. It has a graphic of a crucified man and is captioned "Getting tough on crime c. 33 A.D." I don't think anyone on this forum who knows me would characterize me as anti-religious or anti-Christian, but I purchased the shirt anyway.

I'm sorry, but I find your argumentum ad t-shirtum rediculous.

[BPSCG]

By this logic any organization or business that sells anything with the Southern Cross on it would automatically be considered racist. :confused: I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that a constellation has racist overtones?

Just for the record, I consider the Che t-shirts to be stupid, but after I found a Hitler World Tour concert t-shirt with him on the front and "concert dates" on the back listing cancelled invasions of England and Russia on the back Okay, you really don't see the difference between a t-shirt that celebrates a guerrilla and glorifies his corrupt ideals and a t-shirt that mocks a dictator and celebrates his failure?
I'm sorry, but I find your argumentum ad t-shirtum rediculous.You can get a t-shirt with literally anything printed on it. There are many famous, honorable people who did genuine work for peace; I named just a few of them (and as much as I hold Jimmy Carter in contempt these days, I genuinely respect what he did to bring about peace between Israel and Egypt).

So an organization that claims its purpose is to stop war has as much business raising money by selling Che t-shirts as an organization that claims its purpose is to stop diabetes has raising money by selling Krispy Kreme donuts. And when an organization raises money by selling a product so antithetical to its stated purpose, you have to ask yourself whether they're lying to you about their true mission.

WildCat nailed it. A.N.S.W.E.R. uses their antiwar message as a palatable way of getting people to listen to the sales pitch for their unpalatable product - la revolucion.

[mrbaracuda]

Amusing reading indeed. What's that with the presidential elections? That's just stupid politicking?

The SPD just losing their last bit of credibility, that's what it is. :D
Beck, their party leader said, just like Ypsilanti in Hessen (but here on the federal level) the SPD wouldn't work together (read: use votes of) with the Left party. Problem is, Schwan, the candidate for fed pres is not going to win without the reds' vote and this is considered a sign of opening the door for a coalition of SPD/Left/Green.

But do you really worry the SPD would get revolutionary again?

No, I worry about the Left gaining any further support. What they have so far is bad enough. They're full of commies, have utopian tard ideas and are backed by and have members of the extreme left.

I doubt it's the reforms of the social security system. To quote Clinton: it's the economy stupid.

Of courseit's the economy, but I wasn't referring to the employment rate alone. It's other things as well.

Of course I'm exaggerating. But Schily was widely criticized for the extent of his "anti-terrorist" legislation proposals.

Ah, my interest in politics vanished for quite a long time and came back only about two years ago. Plus I'm only in my twenties, so don't get too deep into it with me! :D But just how old are you? ;)

[IchabodPlain]

I found a Hitler World Tour concert t-shirt with him on the front and "concert dates" on the back listing cancelled invasions of England and Russia on the back in the Nuremburg... yes, that's right, it was 1986 in the Nuremburg Hauptbahnhof, plus my Comic book anecdote above, I don't put any organization or business above selling t-shirts of any nature if they think they'll make a buck that will either feather their nest or help promote their agenda.

...I have that t-shirt

:boxedin:

[Tailgater]

Damn straight. That Democrat Jeb Bush, in cahoots with Shrub, got a bill passed that exempted drilling in Florida coastal waters. That "Dem" Bastaige.

Congrats, you found one spot in the destin dome right off the Florida panhandle used to get Jeb some votes in the north out of hundreds of other places. I'm sure you can find a Republican that's pro-choice too, when it suits them, but we know how the majorities fly.

[gtc]

Sorry but I just am not following your line of reasoning, communism is a quite clearly defined ideology and one of its major principles is that it is stateless. That people call themselves something does not always mean that the are what they call themselves.

I still fail to understand how someone advocating a policy that is in fact "anti-communist" means you can draw a conclusions that she could be a communist. It just does not make any sense.

I have no idea why you can't follow my line of reasoning as it is really quite simple. You favour a normative definition of communism. I was using a positivist definition of communism.

The same definition used by the Communist Party of Australia (http://www.cpa.org.au/booklets/const.pdf) (page 4):

While giving priority to the public ownership of
the nation’s natural resources, the means of production, and
other major segments of the economy, other forms of ownership,
including private ownership, will continue.

The bottom line is this, if you claim that the Communists in Cuba, North Korea, The Soviet Union and China were not Communist, then what where they?

I was speaking of property rights in the sense of land ownership. My understanding is that the USA native Americans did not incorporate the concept of land ownership in their society. I did not mean to imply that concept applied all the way down to tool ownership. I do NOT claim to have any understanding of native American cultures beyond the popular literature I have read so if anyone reading this thread has more expertise I would welcome more more insightful comment.

OK. Land is pretty fundamental to property rights, but I think he might have been talking in more general terms.


Good question. I recognized when making my post that citing native Americans was a stretch since it reached back over 100 years but I thought it was a valid point. That is, BPSCG made an assertion along the lines of "All crows are black" and I pointed to an example of a white crow which served the purpose of my post which was to refute his assertion. I do not have any expertise to identify any society that meets your criteria. That said, lacking that knowledge does not invalidate the point I was making.

OK, I know he was being absolute and that was wrong. I think it might be a better criteria for assessing the benefits of property ownership.

[gtc]

I think this is a stupid argument within the context of this thread

Care to explain why?


but I saw your post as I was getting ready to leave work and now am bandwidth compromised, but before I logged off there did a quick Wiki search that lead me to Communist parties by country. Guess which of the four you listed were/are governed/controlled by the Communist party and the first guess doesn't count.

Actually, I guessed right. All of them but the North Koreans who call themselves the 'Worker's Party' but are a descendant of the Korean Communist Party. Did you search for the individual parties/countries?


By this logic any organization or business that sells anything with the Southern Cross on it would automatically be considered racist. Do you consider this to be true?

Just to clarify, are you referring to the Confederate symbol? The Southern Cross is also the constellation of stars that appears on numerous flags in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Australia).

[gtc]

What about the utopian socialists' projects? Owen's New Lanark; the Fourierist Phalansteres.

If you want to get down to the level of villages that existed only within societies that recognised property rights, then yes, they seem to have been successful for a time.

[Texas]

The words "socialism" and "communism" seem to mean something a little different to everybody that uses them, but nationalizing an industry that is not a natural monopoly seems to be a communist action and a socialist action by almost anybody's definition.

Nationalizing the airport screeners was not a good idea and is another example that indicates how deeply flawed the Bush administration was. It is also reasonable to characterize it as communist or socialist by most standard definitions of those words.

It doesn't mean that Bush was a communist. In some ways that would be a complement to him. It would imply that he had some guiding ideology beyond the cronyism, corruption and partisanship that drove his administration.No Bush fought the nationalisation of the airport screeners.

[davefoc]

No Bush fought the nationalisation of the airport screeners.

I thought you were wrong, but maybe you weren't. In reviewing a few articles about it, the situation seems somewhat ambiguous. Senate Republicans went for it overwhelmingly, but House Republicans resisted it. The Bush administrations seems to have accepted it and opposed it.

In the end Bush signed it but it does seem that he may not have agreed with it. So what were those Republican Senators thinking that must have realized that at least some of their base of support came from free market types who voted for Republicans because they believed the Republican rhetoric about favoring small government, free markets, etc.?

[Mycroft]

Yes, there is no explicit threat behind it, but I would argue it still carries perjorative powers. If it didn't why would BPSCG put "Communists" in his thread title and pound on the fact, page after page, that Waters is one?

This may seem sort of counter-intuitive, but so what if it was pejorative?

I've been called a lot of things in on-line discussions over the years, most of them were meant pejoratively, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were untrue. For example:

Zionist.

Often said as Zionist dupe or Zionist lackey or whatever. The first time I was called that I didn't know what it meant, I had to look it up. The person who said it certainly meant it in a pejorative way.

But guess what? It's true. I am a Zionist. Granted I wouldn't self-describe myself that way and people who throw that term around tend to mean it in a creepy lunatic conspiracy sort of way with an edge of anti-Semitism, but there is still truth in the label. I do support Israel and it's continued existence. I'll own that without hesitation.

Neoconservative or Neo-Con.

I've been called that a lot, always in a pejorative way. Often by people who can't really define the term but know they don't like it.

So...truth there too! Again, I wouldn't have described myself as a Neo-Con, but when I read magazines such as Commentary or The Weekly Standard I tend to agree with their editorial slant, and when I come across William Kristol I tend to agree with him, though less today than several years ago.

So I could go on, but the point is is there such a thing as Zionist-Baiting? Neo-con-baiting? No? How about truther-baiting? Woo-baiting?

Should we try to censor people who correctly identify ideologies they disagree with by accusing them of vague ill-defined baiting?

No, these are just labels. Our issue with them should not be in smearing people who use them, but in evaluating their accuracy when they are used. The label is only pejorative in the mind of someone who believes it to be so, to others it is only descriptive.

[ddt]

The SPD just losing their last bit of credibility, that's what it is. :D
I've read quite some bickering before Herzog was elected as president, and then later when Köhler was presented by the CDU and the SPD came with Rau - a bit strange considering that the president should be a neutral person standing above the parties. I haven't followed Köhler, but Herzog seemed to do a fine job - and before him, Von Weizsäcker, well, he was hors categorie.


Beck, their party leader said, just like Ypsilanti in Hessen (but here on the federal level) the SPD wouldn't work together (read: use votes of) with the Left party. Problem is, Schwan, the candidate for fed pres is not going to win without the reds' vote and this is considered a sign of opening the door for a coalition of SPD/Left/Green.
Is this in anyway new? There have already been SPD-Linke or SPD-PDS coalitions on state level - Brandenburg I think, and in Thüringen at least an SPD minority government with PDS support. At the moment, there is a SPD-Linke coalition in Berlin too. I've heard such speculations for years now.

Ultimately, such a coalition will come. Germany - as many countries - always had a left/right split of about 50/50, so if the SPD wants to govern on the left it needs them.


No, I worry about the Left gaining any further support. What they have so far is bad enough. They're full of commies, have utopian tard ideas and are backed by and have members of the extreme left.
What's "extreme left"? The KPD, before it was forbidden in 1968, never had much support. I have no good overview of the cadre of the Linke now - to what extent it exists of ex-SED members in the East, resp. ex-KPD members in the west. I think in due time it will develop to be a well-established party such as the Dutch Socialist Party (http://international.sp.nl/).


Of course it's the economy, but I wasn't referring to the employment rate alone. It's other things as well.
Things like job protection, and the employers complaining how hard it is to fire someone? (This is now a hot issue here :))


Ah, my interest in politics vanished for quite a long time and came back only about two years ago. Plus I'm only in my twenties, so don't get too deep into it with me! :D But just how old are you? ;)
I had remembered :). I'm 41. My parents were (are) quite politically aware, so I do remember political events from about half 70s.

[The Painter]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan

[ddt]

What about the utopian socialists' projects? Owen's New Lanark; the Fourierist Phalansteres.
If you want to get down to the level of villages that existed only within societies that recognised property rights, then yes, they seem to have been successful for a time.

Well, you didn't specify how big the societies had to be :). They were not self-sufficient, but no society is. They were industrialized, however, and that was the original point in the question, I thought. The Phalansteres existed for quite a long time, decades on end, btw.

[gtc]

Well, you didn't specify how big the societies had to be :). They were not self-sufficient, but no society is. They were industrialized, however, and that was the original point in the question, I thought. The Phalansteres existed for quite a long time, decades on end, btw.

I know. And they certainly are interesting examples. The question probably should be how big and complex can a society be without individual property rights (with an agreed definition).

[Mycroft]

WildCat nailed it. A.N.S.W.E.R. uses their antiwar message as a palatable way of getting people to listen to the sales pitch for their unpalatable product - la revolucion.

Do you think that's it? Or is it just a general desire to undermine US policy, whatever that policy happens to be?

[mrbaracuda]

I've read quite some bickering before Herzog was elected as president, and then later when Köhler was presented by the CDU and the SPD came with Rau - a bit strange considering that the president should be a neutral person standing above the parties. I haven't followed Köhler, but Herzog seemed to do a fine job - and before him, Von Weizsäcker, well, he was hors categorie.

Oh Köhler is according to polls the most respected person in Germany!

Is this in anyway new? There have already been SPD-Linke or SPD-PDS coalitions on state level - Brandenburg I think, and in Thüringen at least an SPD minority government with PDS support. At the moment, there is a SPD-Linke coalition in Berlin too. I've heard such speculations for years now.

Yes, I know there are such coalitions. Thing is, Beck and Ypsilanti repeatedly told the public there won't be coalitions in Hessen with the Left party and Beck repeatedly tells the public there won't be any coalition in the Bundestag with the Left. They don't have much credibility left after the debacle in Hessen and now after sending Schwan into the race for fed pres. Read this (http://www.spd-watch.de/2008/05/franz-muentefering-absage-an-die-linke-kurt-beck/) article on SPD-watch for example.

What's "extreme left"? The KPD, before it was forbidden in 1968, never had much support.

You'd be surprised. It's people like this I'm talking about:

http://www.infopartisan.net/document/images/010503HH.jpg
Banner reads: "Fire and flame against state and capital (as in capitalism)"
We have a growing extreme left. Read the last Verfassungsschutzbericht of 2007 (published recently) if you want to read more about it.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1167108,00.jpg

As well as all the "Antifa" ****ups and well, the Left party isn't exactly opposing those people. They have an article on their party website basically calling for a legalisation of violence against "Nazis". As you might know, for most of those everyone who isn't a commie is a Nazi anyway.

I have no good overview of the cadre of the Linke now - to what extent it exists of ex-SED members in the East, resp. ex-KPD members in the west. I think in due time it will develop to be a well-established party such as the Dutch Socialist Party (http://international.sp.nl/).

Hopefully they all drop dead before that happens. They have a lot of commies in the state parliaments now and the leaders of the Left party are almost exclusively ex-SED members, including the three head guys Lafontaine, Gysi and Bisky. There was a repulsive case with one woman, member of some commie remnant party. Watch this (http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/media/erste662.html) and witness how sneaky the commies have become!

And allow me some polemics!

6-eHdIPofVc

Notice the applause when Gysi mentions Cuba. Disgusting.
*shudder* (http://www.campodecriptana.de/blog/uploads/TK85.JPG)

Things like job protection, and the employers complaining how hard it is to fire someone? (This is now a hot issue here :))

It was here for some time as well; I didn't follow those debates much though. The last one was "Mindestlohn", or minimum wage.

I had remembered :). I'm 41. My parents were (are) quite politically aware, so I do remember political events from about half 70s.

Old fart! :D You old folks are witnessing such a speedy change of society and especially technology, it has to be very interesting! :)

[Rufo]

I have explained in extremely simple terms, clearly and unequivocally, why it is incorrect to call Waters a communist, why per Lonewulf's definition it is red-baiting, and that one should not use a word when one is oblivious of its meaning. There have been no attempts to refute these points, and many repetitions of the unproven claims that Waters is a communist.

May I ask why?

Should we try to censor people who correctly identify ideologies they disagree with by accusing them of vague ill-defined baiting?
A more correctly phrased question, given the situation at hand, would be:
"Should we try to correct people who incorrectly identify ideologies they disagree with by accusing them of baiting as clearly defined here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3744037#post3744037)?"

Well, if they sold these t-shirts (http://www.thoseshirts.com/reagan.html) on their website as well, I'd be inclined to think maybe they weren't a communist organization after all.
Incidentally, that website also sells t-shirts suggesting Hillary Clinton is a communist. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is a communist? I am not accusing you of it, I am asking. I am genuinely curious.

[The Painter]

Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is a communist?


Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

Hillary Clinton;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004

You decide.

[Rufo]

Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

Hillary Clinton;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004

You decide.
I decide? Isn't that making things a bit too simple? What, with me actually having some basic knowledge of what the word means and everything?

No, Hillary Clinton is not a communist.

[BPSCG]

I have explained in extremely simple terms, clearly and unequivocally, why it is incorrect to call Waters a communist, Most of the explanations I've seen here have followed the same pattern. They say Waters isn't a communist because this one piece of evidence doesn't prove it.

"Look - there's a car; it has wheels."
"It's not a car; buses have wheels, too."
"It has two rows of seats."
"It's not a car; some trucks have two rows of seats, too."
"It has a Ford medallion on the grille."
"It's not a car; SUV's have a Ford medallion on the grille, too."

And so on.

No one statement is dispositive, but the deniers act like it should be, and if it isn't, take that as proof that the premise is false.

why per Lonewulf's definition it is red-baiting, No it isn't. LoneWulf's definition (working from memory here) said that red-baiting ascribes political positions far to the left of where the person actually is. Waters is one of the most leftist, perhaps the most leftist person in Congress (is Ron Dellums still around?), so to call her a communist, even if it's not strictly accurate, is no more red-baiting than calling me a neocon is "neocon-baiting" (assuming anyone can tell me what a neocon is...)

Incidentally, that website also sells t-shirts suggesting Hillary Clinton is a communist. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is a communist? I am not accusing you of it, I am asking. I am genuinely curious.No. She appears to favor nationalizing only one industry, AFAIK. Socialist, perhaps. She hasn't made a bunch of speeches for communist-front organizations, either, AFAIK.

[Rufo]

Most of the explanations I've seen here have followed the same pattern. They say Waters isn't a communist because this one piece of evidence doesn't prove it.

"Look - there's a car; it has wheels."
"It's not a car; buses have wheels, too."
"It has two rows of seats."
"It's not a car; some trucks have two rows of seats, too."
"It has a Ford medallion on the grille."
"It's not a car; SUV's have a Ford medallion on the grille, too."

And so on.

No one statement is dispositive, but the deniers act like it should be, and if it isn't, take that as proof that the premise is false.
I thought the general approach here was that you are supposed to prove your statements, and that they are considered false until proven true. The combined statements are not sufficient to prove that Waters is a communist.

Please explain how you assumption makes any more sense than the one I described here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3746503#post3746503).

No it isn't. LoneWulf's definition (working from memory here) said that red-baiting ascribes political positions far to the left of where the person actually is. Waters is one of the most leftist, perhaps the most leftist person in Congress (is Ron Dellums still around?), so to call her a communist, even if it's not strictly accurate, is no more red-baiting than calling me a neocon is "neocon-baiting" (assuming anyone can tell me what a neocon is...)
I can not tell you what a neocon is, because I do not know exactly what neoconservatism constitutes. I would not call you a neocon until I know that and can correctly attribute that political ideology to you.

And is "even if it's not strictly accurate" here a vague way of admitting that you were wrong?

No. She appears to favor nationalizing only one industry, AFAIK. Socialist, perhaps. She hasn't made a bunch of speeches for communist-front organizations, either, AFAIK.
Okay. I don't know a great deal about Clinton's political stances, so I won't get into that. I can imagine she is some sort of social liberal.

Regarding the speech Waters held on a rally organized by ANSWER, it is not plausible to assume that guest speakers at those rallies necessarily are communists. Even in combination with her threat of nationalizing the oil industry, it does not prove that she is a communist.

Also, you have kept arguing that Waters' statement in the OP is enough to assume she is a communist. Furthermore, you have argued that it meant she "espous[es] an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people". That is going very, very far.

If you think you are somehow evening the score with idiots on the political left Godwinning away at various people, shouldn't it be obvious to you that you are coming across as just as bad as them?
"OMG, Bush is allowing people to be detained and waterboarded, he's just like Hitler!"
"OMG, Waters is suggesting nationalization of the oil industry, she's just like Lenin!"

These should be jokes. Please keep them jokes.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

Hillary Clinton;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004

You decide.

My skeptisense is tingling. Did you run that through Snopes first?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just to clarify, are you referring to the Confederate symbol? The Southern Cross is also the constellation of stars that appears on numerous flags in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Australia).

Yeah, I was making a bit of an arcane reference. I'm surprised Beeps was confused by it though what with living in Virginia.

The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over the nature of its symbolism. Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism, both for the history of racial slavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws by Southern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcing racial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement. Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States. Many groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including racist, separatist, and the Ku Klux Klan,[21] while others see it as an historical symbol representing pride in the Southern United States or a past era of southern sovereignty.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

[Texas]

IAnd is "even if it's not strictly accurate" here a vague way of admitting that you were wrong?


Regarding the speech Waters held on a rally organized by ANSWER, it is not plausible to assume that guest speakers at those rallies necessarily are communists. Even in combination with her threat of nationalizing the oil industry, it does not prove that she is a communist.

Also, you have kept arguing that Waters' statement in the OP is enough to assume she is a communist. Furthermore, you have argued that it meant she "espous[es] an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people". That is going very, very far.

.

Maxine is one of many that signed the manifesto on the "World Can't Wait" website. It is a veritable who's who of far left thought:
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2538&Itemid=2

Endorsers of the Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime Include:
James Abourezk, Aris Anagnos, Rocky Anderson, Anti-Flag, Edward Asner, Russell Banks, Ed Begley Jr., Harry Belafonte, St. Clair Bourne, Gabriel Byrne, Margaret Cho, Ward Churchill, Paulette Cole, US Rep John Conyers Jr., John Densmore, Jesse Diaz Jr., Michael Eric Dyson, Steve Earle, Niles Eldredge, Daniel Ellsberg, Eve Ensler, Laura Flanders, Jane Fonda, Martin Garbus, Senator Mike Gravel, Andre Gregory, Sam Hamill, Suheir Hammad, Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rickie Lee Jones, Sarah Jones, Brig. Gen. (Ret) Janis Karpinski, Jonathan Kozol, Rabbi Michael Lerner, US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Robin Meyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Tom Morello, Viggo Mortensen, John Nichols, US Rep. Major Owens, Grace Paley, Harvey Pekar, Sean Penn, Michelle Phillips, Harold Pinter, Michael Ratner, Mark Ruffalo, US Rep. Bobby Rush, Susan Sarandon, Richard Serra, Jeff Sharlet, Rev. Al Sharpton, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheen, Nancy Spero, Gloria Steinem, Lynne Stewart, Serj Tankian, Sunsara Taylor, Studs Terkel, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker, Naomi Wallace, US Rep. Maxine Waters, Cornel West, Ann Wright, Howard Zinn, and thousands more who have already joined us.

more:

WCW is listed as an affiliate of the Maoist organisation "Revolution" that bills itself as the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States. Scroll down through all of the Communist affiliated groups and WCW is listed: http://rwor.org/a/rwlink/links.htm

So Waters' association with Answer is not her only link to Communist groups. Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Maxine is one of many that signed the manifesto on the "World Can't Wait" website. It is a veritable who's who of far left thought:
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2538&Itemid=2



WCW is listed as an affiliate of the Maoist organisation "Revolution" that bills itself as the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States. Scroll down through all of the Communist affiliated groups and WCW is listed: http://rwor.org/a/rwlink/links.htm

So Waters' association with Answer is not her only link to Communist groups. Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar.

That is quite the reach, but well researched.

[Texas]

That is quite the reach, but well researched. I don't particularly care if she is a communist or not but I think it is intellectually dishonest not to, at least, acknowledge that she has a history of affiliation with communists, just as many others on that list.

[davefoc]

Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

Hillary Clinton;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004

You decide.

How do you feel about the Medicare drug plan pushed through by the Bush administration?

Any comments about the victims relief fund for 9/11 victims championed by the Bush administration?

And thoughts about the agricultural subsidy programs that have grown massively under the Bush administration?

Perhaps you have some thoughts about the SUV subsidies passed by the Republican congress and endorsed by the Bush administration?

My point here is that your partisan view of the world is blinding you to the fact that your precious Republicans are the biggest government give away guys of all time. Perhaps you think as long as a lot of the give aways are directed at the haves instead of the have nots that makes them better than the Democratic give aways?

If you are voting for Republicans because they give hypocritical speeches supporting small government ideas and the Democrats don't your choice is reasonable. If you are thinking that Republicans in some way are actually more supportive of small government ideas than Democrats are then you are deluded. Maxine Waters might actually favor the very bad idea of nationalizing the oil companies but the Republicans favor taking massive amounts of money from every American to continue the criminally counterproductive ethanol subsidies and the agricultural subsidies and the pharmaceutical company enrichment plans and military spending governed by cronyism.

You might be able to make an argument that FEMA shouldn't exist but under the Republicans and the Democrats it does exist. But the Republicans decided that spending government money to secure emergency bus contracts from a crony company that didn't have buses was a good idea. So even if you think FEMA isn't a legitimate government function it still seems like you might lean towards a party that would actually contract from companies that have buses when buses are what is ostensibly being contracted for. But of course as a knee jerk Republican none of that matters to you. You will vote for these guys indefinitely no matter how thoroughly they screw the country.

[The Painter]

How do you feel about the Medicare drug plan pushed through by the Bush administration?

Any comments about the victims relief fund for 9/11 victims championed by the Bush administration?

And thoughts about the agricultural subsidy programs that have grown massively under the Bush administration?

Perhaps you have some thoughts about the SUV subsidies passed by the Republican congress and endorsed by the Bush administration?

My point here is that your partisan view of the world is blinding you to the fact that your precious Republicans are the biggest government give away guys of all time. Perhaps you think as long as a lot of the give aways are directed at the haves instead of the have nots that makes them better than the Democratic give aways?



If you are voting for Republicans because they give hypocritical speeches supporting small government ideas and the Democrats don't your choice is reasonable. If you are thinking that Republicans in some way are actually more supportive of small government ideas than Democrats are then you are deluded. Maxine Waters might actually favor the very bad idea of nationalizing the oil companies but the Republicans favor taking massive amounts of money from every American to continue the criminally counterproductive ethanol subsidies and the agricultural subsidies and the pharmaceutical company enrichment plans and military spending governed by cronyism.

You might be able to make an argument that FEMA shouldn't exist but under the Republicans and the Democrats it does exist. But the Republicans decided that spending government money to secure emergency bus contracts from a crony company that didn't have buses was a good idea. So even if you think FEMA isn't a legitimate government function it still seems like you might lean towards a party that would actually contract from companies that have buses when buses are what is ostensibly being contracted for. But of course as a knee jerk Republican none of that matters to you. You will vote for these guys indefinitely no matter how thoroughly they screw the country.

Wow, all that from my little old "you decide"? BTW you didn't decide.

You certainly like to jump to conclusions and make assumptions. Let’s see, Medicare, needs work. 911 victims massively overpaid. It sets a very bad precedent for paying the victims of the next terrorist attack. Agriculture subsidies, you’re just learning about this now? It has been being abused for decades, by both parties.

ethanol subsidies

Hmmm, I seem to remember something about oil shortages and global warming being pushed by Al Gore and the left for ethanol. I don't remember it being a right wing conspiracy. Oh BTW I've never supported ethanol. I think we should use food for food.

your precious Republicans

You will vote for these guys indefinitely no matter how thoroughly they screw the country.

Really? My Republicans?? My Republicans are nothing like the current Republicans. Now they are just RINOs. I didn’t vote for Bush. I voted Libertarian I am a 0%er. I can’t remember the last time I heard a Republican speech about smaller government. I've said that Bush is spending like a drunken Kennedy for years now. His budgets are out of control. I've also said Clinton got more of the Republican agenda passed than Bush. At this point in time, I really don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between the 2 parties and I’ve said so in the past. Perhaps your partisan view has blinded from seeing that. What was that? Oh it was your knee jerking.

I don't know how FEMA got in here but we do need FEMA Why wouldn't we?? We also need it to be run properly. Brownie did a bad job.

[Darat]

I have no idea why you can't follow my line of reasoning as it is really quite simple. You favour a normative definition of communism. I was using a positivist definition of communism.

The same definition used by the Communist Party of Australia (http://www.cpa.org.au/booklets/const.pdf) (page 4):

The bottom line is this, if you claim that the Communists in Cuba, North Korea, The Soviet Union and China were not Communist, then what where they?

...snip...

Sorry but even if we go with your "positivist" define of a communist there is no information in her statement that enables us to conclude that she is or could be a communist? (Apart from a trite "well everyone could be a communist/wahtever-label-not-ruled-out".)

[BPSCG]

I thought the general approach here was that you are supposed to prove your statements, and that they are considered false until proven true. No, they are considered unproven until they are proven true. If you ask James Randi if the statement, "There really is a Bigfoot" is true or false, he will not answer "false." He will answer that it remains unproven.

The combined statements are not sufficient to prove that Waters is a communist.Perhaps not; if being a communist were a crime, and she were being tried in a court of law, even I wouldn't convict her based on the evidence we've seen so far.

But based on her past history and public utterances, I believe the most consistent explanation for it is that she is a communist.

Regarding the speech Waters held on a rally organized by ANSWER, it is not plausible to assume that guest speakers at those rallies necessarily are communists. We've established already that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a communist group. A communist group might, accidentally, invite someone to speak to them who does not share their views. But how likely would a communist group be to repeatedly invite someone to speak to them, if they do not hold important beliefs in common?

Even in combination with her threat of nationalizing the oil industry, it does not prove that she is a communist.Again, this is the "pick one item and claim it proves nothing, while ignoring the totality" argument.

Furthermore, you have argued that it meant she "espous[es] an economic system that killed, conservatively, fifty million people". That is going very, very far.If she is a communist, that is exactly what she is doing. Every communist espouses an economic system that has killed, conservatively 50 million people (I see someone else around here says it's a hundred million; there's my well-established conservatism at work again...). Do you dispute that?

If you think you are somehow evening the score with idiots on the political left Godwinning away at various people, shouldn't it be obvious to you that you are coming across as just as bad as them?
"OMG, Bush is allowing people to be detained and waterboarded, he's just like Hitler!"
"OMG, Waters is suggesting nationalization of the oil industry, she's just like Lenin!"Strawman. Did I ever say I was trying to even some score?

We now have Texas's research showing Congresswoman Waters signs petitions for Maoist groups. I eagerly await the next post arguing "this one item doesn't prove she's a communist." (Good catch, Texas...)

[BPSCG]

Yeah, I was making a bit of an arcane reference. I'm surprised Beeps was confused by it though what with living in Virginia.Yeah, 'cuz we're all a bunch of moonshine-drinkin' inbreds here who love nothin' more'n burnin' a cross on Sattiday night and singing our own original verses to "Dixie":

In Dixeiland
Where I was born in,
Ni**ers hang
From trees each mornin'
Look away, look away,
Look away, Dixie land.

:mad:

[gtc]

Sorry but even if we go with your "positivist" define of a communist there is no information in her statement that enables us to conclude that she is or could be a communist? (Apart from a trite "well everyone could be a communist/wahtever-label-not-ruled-out".)

I never said that it is possible to conclude that she is a communist. In fact, I said the opposite:

I think it is clear from this thread that the lady in question could be a communist given her support for nationalising the oil industry and her speaking at communist run events. However, this is not sufficient to show that she is a communist.

That said, communist regimes are noted for their nationalisation of industry and communist parties do advocate such policies:

Communist Party of Australia (http://www.cpa.org.au/state/priv.html#three):
In our society, public ownership of an enterprise, facility or institution, means ownership by a government on behalf of all the people.

Communist Party of the USA (http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question36)
All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social development. All socialists aren’t for communism; some see Communists as too radical.

Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production (factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy (banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the interests of the working people, using part of the value that workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits for the whole people.

Communism, as we see it, is a more advanced stage that comes after socialism. Communism, a stage of development never reached anywhere yet, reduces the state apparatus to minimal administrative functions, since people and society will have advanced past the need for coercive functions like armies, and will directly and indirectly provide people with the full benefits of the labor they engage in.

Soviet Union (from wikipedia):
War Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Communism)(1918-21):
All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
New Economic Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) (1921-29)
the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries.

After the NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Forms_of_property)
In particular, after the end of a short period of the New Economic Policy and with collectivization completed, all industrial property and virtually all land were collective.

...

There were several forms of collective ownership, the most significant being state property, kolkhoz property, and cooperative property.

I thought it was a fairly simple point. Communists do advocate government ownership of the means of production and do speak at communist rallies. But not everyone who advocates government ownership or speaks at communist rallies is a communist.

[Darat]

I never said that it is possible to conclude that she is a communist. In fact, I said the opposite:

...snip...

And I didn't say you did: "... enables us to conclude that she is or could be a communist..."

[Darth Rotor]

So, she sounds like a pig and rolls around with pigs, but she's really a duck?
Let's keep her personal appearance out of this, shall we?

[gtc]

And I didn't say you did: "... enables us to conclude that she is or could be a communist..."

OK, I interpreted the question mark at the end of the sentence to mean that you thought I had said that but not provided evidence.

What about the rest of my post?