Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Actually, clearly about half of us are republicans, just a minority support Bush
So, just try not to blanket attack the right when attacking Bush, because that just forces the divide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BELAGOD

As a closet libertarian, I cheer on every time River says "People don't like to be meddled with," or Mal says "Put all the planets under one rule, so they can be ignored and interfered with equally." Maybe that makes me a conservative, but I'll curse Bush as long and loudly as any of my liberal friends, just for different reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Their ideological bent is global socialist, and their political partisan bent is which ever way the wind blows.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
at least here in America

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
If Bush-fans (or Bush-worshipers) come her, isn't it just to fight? To come here to call someone 'The L Word', or pinko when they say they're sensing something goin' sideways with our government or leaders is kind of pointless, don't ya think?

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that anyone who thinks "big government" is automatically a "socialist" in DT's book. That makes dubya a "socialist" too. DT- is there another word we can use besides "socialist"? There are various stripes of "big government" folks- some on the side of corporations and some on the side of "the people", some that believe in militarism and some that believe in environmentalism. There has to be some way of distinguishing them. (Yeah, I know- you'll say "big government" is automatically dangerous and it doesn't matter what the motives are of the party in power. I reply by saying that big ANYTHING can do big damage but also big good. Big anything requires a unbreakable check/ balance/ feedback to keep it in line and neither market forces nor democracy seem to be hacking it.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But this is the lesser of two evils game, that doesn't mean it's my first choice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Centuryhouse:
Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

...the checks and balances that were designed to keep it in check are being removed slowly but surely. If other's think it's not "going sideways", it makes me wonder if they have any idea how our government was intended to function by those who designed it?

Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are being gobbled up, and have been for decades - by both parties. All of this 'one world government' stuff we're starting to embrace IS "The Alliance".

---

Quote:

---

Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

---

Quote:

---

Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

---

Quote:

---

Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

---

Quote:

---

Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

---

Quote:

---

I think there are a lot of leftists on this board, but the only reason they are socialist leaning leftists is that that is what they were programmed to be by their education, the way I was. I went to college with nothing but a 5th grade education, and I gobbled stuff up hook line and sinker, and no one ever said "hey look, we're darth vader, aren't we great?" They always pretended to be for whatever they thought we already wanted, peace, prosperity, fairness, and little fuzzy bunnies.

---

Quote:

---

Consistent with their belief in minimal taxation and limited government, they generally oppose the tax-funded provision of public services such as postal service, transportation, welfare programs, Social Security, public education, and health care. They argue that whatever the government provides for consumption (e.g., transportation, education, health care, etc.), the private sector could produce more abundantly, and at a higher quality and lower cost. They often argue that in a truly free market, even the poorest would end up better off as a result of faster overall economic growth - which they believe is likely to occur with lower taxes and less regulation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the pilot Mal et al conduct illegal salvage on a transport ship. You cheer, what a libertarian, what a great guy sticking it to "the man." Yet I bet you thought it was ok to shoot those folks looting in New Orleans? Mal steals from the rich and..... well he keeps it. For all your saying that he's a Libertarian icon most libertarians would prefer people that take other people's property (especially THEIR property) in jail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Mal doesnt like the way the Alliance expands but why would he? It cuts down on the crimes he can pull, it means more regulation and more red tape. If a Crack dealer opposes wire taps is he a civil libertarian or does he just not want to get busted?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Mal doesnt like the way the Alliance expands but why would he? It cuts down on the crimes he can pull, it means more regulation and more red tape. If a Crack dealer opposes wire taps is he a civil libertarian or does he just not want to get busted?

---

Quote:

---

Can you really fight a war for your liberty and at the same time deny it to others?

---

Quote:

---

Thing is, Bush isn't a conservative (well, he's a culturally conservative). He doesn't want to make the government less invasive, or smaller, or more defensive of basic freedoms.

---

Quote:

---

As a result, civil liberties were destroyed, the world economy collapsed and 100 million people were killed in endless ideological genocidal warfare. To say that they failed doesn't even scratch the surface. It was an unholy abomination.

---

Quote:

---

http://markhumphrys.com/modern.left.html

---

Quote:

---

let's invade - is at the best suboptimal, and possible out and out appalling.

---

Quote:

---

If, like me, you've studied socialism in action in depth, you know that naziism is a subset of it

---

Quote:

---

Do you think he's a 'bad guy', Fletch?

---

Quote:

---

The term 'neocon' was coined by michael harrington, who was a member of the shachtman trotskyite movement in the 50s-70s. It refers to socialists who join the republican party. Litterally, 'neocon' is a type of socialist, the way 'nazi', 'communist' and 'green' are all types of socialist. Some socialists are obviously more objectionable than others. In particular, a neocon is a shachmanite, which is a type of trotskyite. A neocon is a republican, and usually a former social democrat. If they are still a democrat, they are a social democrat, and not a neocon.

Max Shachtman was a socialist leader in the American communist party (ACP) who left to lead the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

The short history is the ACP was started by pro-soviets in the '20s, and then broke with the soviets over Stalinism. After Stalin's death in '53, the ACP split. The two factions, the leninists who favored renewing ties with the USSR, stayed as the ACP, the trotskyites, who favored a continuing the divide with the USSR left and joined the SWP, and their leader, Max Shachtman, as its head.

The Shachtmanites later left the SWP to join the democrats, and became the social democrats. This group later split as a result of the failed "scoop" jackson campaign of '72. It was here that the ones called neocons decided to make the move towards the republican party.

The democrats decision to nominate a peace candidate was a sign that '68 had temporarily killed the democrat hawk, and that they might need to go elsewhere. War was always on the agenda, since the entire object of Trotskyism is global social revolution.

Trotskyism holds:

1. The perfect society can be designed.
2. The perfect society can implement the design through revolution.
3. Every country must have a revolution in order for the world to be free of opposition to the perfect idea.

Shachtmanism only differs from traditional Trotskyism in a few notable ways:

1. Compromise is not possible, because it corrupts the perfect idea.
2. Internal revolutions compromise with the revolutionaries, and thus should be avoided, the perfect idea needs the perfect army, typically the US army.
3. Temporary corruption is tolerable because the ends justify the means, and this corruption will be corrected later.
4. The Mussolini corporatism, merger of corporation and state, with one monopolistic corporation holding power over a function is superior to soviet state agencies, because if you lose power of the agency, it is controlled by your opponenent, whereas the entrenched monopoly is always controlled by you.
5. The world will ultimately be arranged into a hierachy of supernational entities such as the EU, Nafta, African Union, Asean, etc., which will be ruled via a compound majority.
6. Compound Majority is when 60% of voters in 60% of districts in 60% of provinces in 60% of nations in 60% of multi-national unions in the world support the agenda, you have a majority, even if it is only 2.5% of the world's population (assuming 1/2 of elligible people, ie. 1/3 of all people vote, as is typical)

The neocons may have been responsible for Nixon's fall, and Ford's rise, there's a lot of theory out there, this one I suspect to be true because of Ford's appointment of neocons. The later went on to create the Reagan campaign, wooing the christian right as an ally, and ousting frontrunner GHW Bush.

The attempted an alliance with Bush Sr. but it was touch and go, and later they came back with Bush Jr., a stooge totally under their control. These people, this group, is not a totally amorphous entity, but has always contained many of the same members, though there has been some fluidity to it, it contains Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, etc., the folks we now know as 'neocons.'

Important to note, a neocon is never even an implied conservative in the traditional sense, but a socialist supporter or the conservative political movement.

The other side of the neocons are those who stayed democrats, the social democrats, now calling themselves moderates, but are anything but, include people such as Lieberman, Clinton, DiFi and Ben Nelson, along with others. There is a fair amount of evidence that during the administration of Bush Sr., when neocon influence was ebbing, the neocons healed their split with the other social dems and assisted Bill Clinton to power.

The decision apparantly came during the Gulf War, when Bush Sr. refused to invade Iraq to take out Saddam, which had long been on the neocon agenda. By re-aligning themselves with their former allies in the social dems, the neocons helped to create the Clinton administration, and were routinely in his office, helping to form Clinton's Iraq policy.

PNAC is a fragment of the neocon movement which became disillusioned with the Clinton strategy in Iraq and formed in '98 to create a republican opposition, in George W. Bush.

Bush was taught how to be president by Condi Rice, a traditional republican, and then aided in his campaign by Karl Rove, also a more traditional republican, and then joined with Dick Cheney, a traditional neocon, and close ally of the Clinton Administration, to form the new republican-neocon ticket. Once in office the lion's share of the agenda has been more neo-con, and less traditionally republican.

This awkward dynamic of the two former members of the Shachtmanite camp, one republican, and one democrat, is what I blithely refer to as "Team Evil." It's not to say that there is no tension between the two mutant children, but they have an uncanny closeness which is more supportive of their other half than of their own respective parties, which is why Bush doesn't want a NY GOP member opposing Hillary for NY Senate '06, because a defeat there would more or less kill Hillary's presidential '08 chances.

My best guess is the current team evil plan is to run Ben Nelson/Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, and oppose it with Newt Gingrich/Condi Rice on the other. Gingrich/Rice would throw the election, possibly by openly supporting Intelligent Design and some other well designed suicide platforms. In exchange for their part, Gingrich would probably become secretary of the treasury or some such, and Condi would probably be made CEO of Chevron/Texaco. Afterwords, the agenda would resume where it had left off, and Hillary would invade Iran.

Here's a good starting place for learning about these guys and their roots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

---