Would you vote Respect?

Marx supposedly said on his deathbed that he wasn't a Marxist..:p

Also, I debated with Solaris over MSN, and we reached an admirable conclusion.
 
If you were next to me, I'd punch you. An e-punch will have to do. *punch*.

Just. My hands are in my head. Anger, Disbelief, Amazement. If you thin.... Just.... I'm not going to bother.

And good point kirkovmon, I'll read into it and get back to you.

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha Bring it on junior!
Anger, disbelief, haha for what? :p I quoted what the NSDAP stands for => what it means. It was a national socialist workers party, i thought that was common knowledge, and if that pisses you off, then explain why, for now it sound like you cant stand "the truth" of the meaning (which i frankly dont give a **** about, since thats what it means = READ). :p
 
National Socialism has **** all to do with Socialism.
 
Artists are evil.
Hitler was an artist.
Vote SCIENCE!

Technocracy Party - Vote Kirovman 2008.
 
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha Bring it on junior!
Anger, disbelief, haha for what? :p I quoted what the NSDAP stands for => what it means. It was a national socialist workers party, i thought that was common knowledge, and if that pisses you off, then explain why, for now it sound like you cant stand "the truth" of the meaning (which i frankly dont give a **** about, since thats what it means = READ). :p
You do know that the name NSDAP was formed thusly:

National <- to attract the right wingers and traditionalists
Socialist <- to attraact the left wingers and reformers
Workers <- to attract the working man

It was simply calculated to attract as many people as possible to their banner..
 
nazism was just a unholy mixture of socialism and statism. it ran on a conservative platform but implemented socialist ideas in the background
 
NSDAP wasnt a lefty socialist party, but they did incorporate alot of socialism elements (as their party name allready suggest) to attract the unemployed worker-voters, especially to counter communism which they saw as their main enemy.
Their racial and nationalist elements ofcourse made them an extremo-right wing party.
 
Their racial and nationalist elements ofcourse made them an extremo-right wing party.

Nononono, economic issues are not the same as social issues.
 
Nononono, economic issues are not the same as social issues.

True dat.

The Nazis were hardcore authoritarians. As regards their economic policy, they probably came out somewhere in the centre - some right wing ideas, some left wing ones.
 
Respect is an extremist party, just like the BNP is.

The only point i agree with them on would be the rise of the minimum wage to £7.40. But that might mean that a lot more of the manufacturing jobs and the service jobs get outsourced to countries like India or China where people are paid with ham sandwiches and bowls of rice.
 
Respect is an extremist party, just like the BNP is.

The only point i agree with them on would be the rise of the minimum wage to £7.40. But that might mean that a lot more of the manufacturing jobs and the service jobs get outsourced to countries like India or China where people are paid with ham sandwiches and bowls of rice.
Immediate withdrawl from Iraq.
Nationalisation of Ralways are Bus's?
 
I think the Iraqi's would enjoy that immediate withdraw from Iraq -> full scale civil war ftw
 
so the party is responsible for their constituents/supporters pov? that's just crazy talk; as in you're batshit insane you partisan little monkey


...although you do have a point; this certainly would make me second guess voting for bush ...birds of a feather, and all that
 
No, and in fact I would gladly go to battle against every member of this political party if I had the chance.

F*cking socialists f*ck up everything.
 
No, and in fact I would gladly go to battle against every member of this political party if I had the chance.

F*cking socialists f*ck up everything.
Aye look at sweden, people starving all over the show.
 
Aye look at sweden, people starving all over the show.

Your irony is ill-founded. Sweden is not very socialist.

Wikipedia said:
Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria and Italy, publicly owned enterprises were always of minor importance. 80% of the workforce is organized through the trade-unions which have have the right to elect two representatives to the board in all Swedish companies with more than 25 employees.[11] The public and the trade-union controlled pension funds, non-profit organizations and the reserve funds of the trade-unions own more than 50% of Sweden capital
 
Because its system isn't very socialist. "Ideas" do nothing unless they are in practice.
The welfare ideas they have.. in practice, the good education and health services, free of charge.... are these not socialist ideas?
 
The welfare ideas they have.. in practice, the good education and health services, free of charge.... are these not socialist ideas?


Those are socialist ideas. Sweden is about halfway between socialism and capitalism. Still, nearly all business is privatized, which is what matters most economically. When you remove competition, things like inefficiency, beaucracy, and corruption increase, and black markets have to come in to fill the market gaps.

Even China mostly privatized all their industries once they realized that government-controlled agencies usually don't work as well.
 
Those are socialist ideas. Sweden is about halfway between socialism and capitalism. Still, nearly all business is privatized, which is what matters most economically. When you remove competition, things like inefficiency, beaucracy, and corruption increase, and black markets have to come in to fill the market gaps.

Even China mostly privatized all their industries once they realized that government-controlled agencies usually don't work as well.
Under socialism buissness's would be welcome to compete with state buissness. However their prices would be much higher and the products of a lesser quality as state products would be made for use not profit.
 
Under socialism buissness's would be welcome to compete with state buissness. However their prices would be much higher and the products of a lesser quality as state products would be made for use not profit.

Except it doesn't work out that way. Private businesses have historically worked much much better than government-run enterprises.
 
So how do you propose to alter the manufacturing lifecycle management to fit in with socialism?

Will state business make use of the Six Sigma Process Excellence to ensure that their products are of a higher quality than the privately owned industry?
 
The welfare ideas they have.. in practice, the good education and health services, free of charge.... are these not socialist ideas?

is it really free because all your doing is paying for it in taxes
 
Privatizing healthcare and transportation is a extremely good idea, mainly because you don't pay for things that you don't need, but only the ones that you choose to do so. However, in a 'socialist-capitalist' economy, you pay for it anyway, because taxes are way higher.

you havent been paying attention then :E

D:

Yahoo search for 빨치산 (Partisan):

http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/24/20060919/luna_318069_1[520804].jpg

http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/1/20060910/142006091000200_1.jpg
 
so you're a fool on top of being batshit insane ........I see




edit: that applies to both Nemisis and Numbers
 
Privatizing healthcare and transportation is a extremely good idea, mainly because you don't pay for things that you don't need, but only the ones that you choose to do so. However, in a 'socialist-capitalist' economy, you pay for it anyway, because taxes are way higher.
Here's the problem Numbers, that way, the only people who can afford decent health are the rich. You fall ill with cancer in the USA without insurance, you're pretty ****ed. At the best your not going to get half the treatment you'd get in the UK, becuase over here we all put our money together and create a health system where anyone, no matter how rich or poor can go to a hospital and get some treatment, that if that service wouldn't get, they would die. That's what it's effectively coming down too, by denying a society free health care you are condeming them and their children to death when others could be treated becuase they have the money.

Life is a human right, and no law abiding citizen has anymore of a right to it than anyone else.
 
Perhaps, but what percentage of the entire nation gets cancer? 0.09%?

Life is a human right, and no law abiding citizen has anymore of a right to it than anyone else.

Nature doesn't care about human rights, though.
 
Uh, why me?

the partisan thing ..do you know what partisan means?

par-ti-san:

3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.
 
Perhaps, but what percentage of the entire nation gets cancer? 0.09%?



Nature doesn't care about human rights, though.
I saw a cancer research ad on TV that said 1/3 of women in the UK will get some form of breast cancer.

And what about less extreme things such as a broken leg ect?
 
Ok, I never knew that.

Partisan here means:

#1. Communist guerrila fighters

#2. Northern armed spies.

saw a cancer research ad on TV that said 1/3 of women in the UK will get some form of breast cancer.

And what about less extreme things such as a broken leg ect?

National health insurance? Like a massive cheap health insurance policy.
 
Back
Top