wrong with socialism!

I wanted to vote for Brian Moore, but he wasn't on the Texas ballot.

Additionally, I was fooled by the news coverage making the election sound closer than it was, and I didn't want to help palin be a heartbeat away.

My argument is exactly the opposite, one can be a socialist without being a communist.

Most socialists are not communist.

One cannot be a communist without being a socialist.

Such labels break down easily.

Not if applied consistently. The left is for egalitarianism, the right is the maintenance of the status of the rich and the powerful.

In a Dictorship where there is no other party one can't say they sit left or right since they are the only party.

A Dictatorship makes political discourse impossible.

In some like Iran, they're distinguished between moderate and conservative, with the general consensus that there is no liberal wing.

Moderate and conservative are terms that we apply and as such are suspect.

In England, it's the front-benchers vs the back-benchers, the front being in power.

The front benchers are in leadership, the back benchers are not.

The Tories are on one side, Labor is on the other. Both attempt to marginalize the other parties.

Most parties in Europe take on the description of the Left in that they support Unionism.

Unionism as in egalitarianism versus the conservation of the rights of kings, aristocrats or the rich.

The "right-wing" in many peripheral countries don't support the institutions if they are not the ones running it so they too would totally get rid of the hated institution.

I don't know what you mean here.

The American Revolution preceded the French, but support for the French Revolution was breaking us down into the first political parties, since initially they tried to avoid that. The Senate Chamber was constructed in 1810, which was during the Napoleonic Wars which pretty much all did not support, although Jefferson backpedaled on his powers of the presidency, in purchasing the Louisiana purchase from Bonaparte, so at that point there would be no deliberate imitation of Napoleonic France.

The Lousiana purchase was the deal extraordinaire. To borrow the French word.

You're just using warmed over Marxism in his disdain for socialism which he defined as being the petit bourgeoisie.

Already answered.

Now the French may be using the right wing v left wing too, but that's about as relevant as describing a country, like the aforementioned Iran, as a democracy because they have the vote, even though no one runs for election without approval of the ayatollahs first.

We use the term democracy as well yet no wins the national races without the approval of the corporate powers that be.

What's happening now is distinctions being made within parties so they have their own right and left wing structure.

The Democrats and the Republicans represent the two factions of the Party of Privilege and Power. To borrow the words of Woody the Wise.

And Democrats and republicans both have their own version of "true-believers" who suspect and malign others of their own party who don't hold to the same views as being one with "the Enemy."

It's similar to the way many Born Again Christians, use their movement, often a smaller one, against the larger movemeent.

You are capitalizing the word Communist which makes it a Brand Name.

Those are the ones I watch out for.

It is the communists that I have no problem with.

see below

That is State Communism.

It is also the exaltation of the 'Great Leader'.

Because they fail to live up to the socialist ideal does not mean the ideal is invalid.

It means that human nature causes altruism to fail in the face of great egos.

I gotta skeedaddle, The Terminator is on.

Because they fail to live up to the (Democratic) ideal does not mean the ideal is invalid.

You have become insulting so I like you very much less, my sometimes intelligent sounding but for the most part tedious and now erstwhile friend.

Commercial break

Talk about sloppy terminology. Propaganda is to convince, and Hollywood is to entertain, unless you're calling The Terminator a documentary.

If it were a genuine documentary, it would by definition, not be propaganda.

Talk about sloppy thinking.

Hollywood is about entertainment, but it is about establishing a world view that will benefit the corporations. It is mind control.

That is the cause.

You will not see people bashing corporations. You WILL see a world of consumerism.

It is propaganda, they do it because they are controlled by trans national corporations.

'propaganda' here

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

As an idea and NOT capitalized contrary to you previous assertions:

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Take a break from the sexual trash you seem to spend most of your time with and read this:

The Times Online

Hollywood calls — but only if your face fits

The film industry is being stalked by a new McCarthyism that is more dangerous for being so insidious

here

That is one take, there are other more penetrating viewpoints, more time away from your pointless videos:

Chomsky - Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies 1/6 here

Chomsky on class war here

Parenti on political discourse here

In the Corporate State, propaganda is used everywhere to elimate any thinking of a social nature.

For the Corporations there is nothing but consumerism, anything they are involved with needs to promote that principle. People are not citizens of a country, they are not members of a society, they are not even human beings. They are consumers. That language pervades everywhere. Even on liberal blogs.

The obscene video you foisted upon me yesterday is only another example. The glorification of violence.

And the 'Terminator' glorifies what?

Everything in Radio, Television, the Movies, every medium is subject to this program. Anyone that takes Corporate money is affected.

Hollywood takes all sorts of placement money for every product that you see anywhere in any production. The money comes with lots of strings.

When you sit and watch the trash you are affected.

Show me a big budget socialist movie. Show me where movies on social causes see major syndication. There are only rare exceptions.

This is the land of the corporation, Hollywood is an important component.

You also forgot the internet.

This site carries advertising for ann colter, rash limpballs, doughy pantload and crybaby beck, because whoever carries the site sold that advertising, whether C&L approves or not.

And for all we know the carrier service (I don't know technogeek), may have aided booshco in data-sweeping etc., or a parent or sibling company did.

So to "give it to the man" you'd have to give up reading all newspapers, magazines, books, music etc., because even if they're liberal, there are corporations helping to advance their pieces, who probably do the same to artists who would enrage us.

Even academic publishers depend on the financing of alumni, and who knows how they came by that money? Maybe they're just doing it for the tax deduction, so they can keep more than they would without the deductions. The government also helps fund education, the very system you seem to abhor.

So are you going to give up Crooks and Liars?

Talk about naivete.