23 Jun 07
EU leaders have agreed a deal which forms a treaty, including most of the main points of the constitution which was rejected by voters in France and Holland 2 years ago and certainly would be in the UK too if we were given a vote on it. These leaders laboured particularly hard to present the treaty in a form which would "not need to be put to voters in a referendum". Why was that then? They knew that any such referendum would kill off the idea of having such a treaty - which is a step closer to the formation of the Union of Socialist European Republics (USER) - because the voters simply do not want this! We are now entering the days of the Fourth Reich.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeWell, you were obviously stating a good point there, until you ended with your socialist-fear-mongering drivel.
EU leaders have agreed a deal which forms a treaty, including most of the main points of the constitution which was rejected by voters in France and Holland 2 years ago and certainly would be in the UK too if we were given a vote on it. These leaders laboured particularly hard to present the treaty in a form which would "not need to be put to voters ...[text shortened]... because the voters simply do not want this! We are now entering the days of the Fourth Reich.
There's not a socialist in power in the EU. Not one.
The treaty is all about giving more powers to multi-nationals, so that local laws (union laws, etc.) can be over-ruled. Exactly the opposite of communism, if you will.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by shavixmirIf you wish I will name three EU countries ruled by socialists, just three, I'm sure there are more but three spring to mind - Sweden, Italy, UK. Further, the EU treaty is NOT aimed at giving more power to multi-national companies - that would be eminently sensible, it is there to give more power to the multi-national body that is the EU.
Well, you were obviously stating a good point there, until you ended with your socialist-fear-mongering drivel.
There's not a socialist in power in the EU. Not one.
The treaty is all about giving more powers to multi-nationals, so that local laws (union laws, etc.) can be over-ruled. Exactly the opposite of communism, if you will.
Anyway, your post contains an inherent contradiction - you say national laws are trade union laws and also claim that there is no socialist rule in Europe, in which case, how do the socialist/communist trade unions manage to get their laws passed?
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeDude... Tony Blair a socialist? How much drugs do you take?
If you wish I will name three EU countries ruled by socialists, just three, I'm sure there are more but three spring to mind - Sweden, Italy, UK. Further, the EU treaty is NOT aimed at giving more power to multi-national companies - that would be eminently sensible, it is there to give more power to the multi-national body that is the EU.
Anyway, ...[text shortened]... pe, in which case, how do the socialist/communist trade unions manage to get their laws passed?
Sweden is a capitalist nation and has a few nationalised institutions.
Italy? They've just voted in a slightly more left-wing government than Berlesconi's. And that was as right-wing capitalist as right-wing capitalist come.
You really need to look up communism in a dictionary dude.
Union laws have been passed during 100 years of struggle by the producing classes. Forcing governments and businesses to make concessions.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by shavixmirTony Blair is a socialist, I clearly have a saner mind than you do, I have never used an illegal drug, Gordon Brown is even more socialist, Sweden is worse still, Romano Prodi is about as bad as the Swedish government. Rather than keep asking me my views on communism, perhaps you aught to read them, I made them clear in the "end is nigh" thread.
Dude... Tony Blair a socialist? How much drugs do you take?
Sweden is a capitalist nation and has a few nationalised institutions.
Italy? They've just voted in a slightly more left-wing government than Berlesconi's. And that was as right-wing capitalist as right-wing capitalist come.
You really need to look up communism in a dictionary dude.
U ...[text shortened]... of struggle by the producing classes. Forcing governments and businesses to make concessions.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeYes. I think you have summed up the position very well, except that Blair is neither fish nor fowl, so to speak, but rather an unprincipled opportunist.
Tony Blair is a socialist, I clearly have a saner mind than you do, I have never used an illegal drug, Gordon Brown is even more socialist, Sweden is worse still, Romano Prodi is about as bad as the Swedish government. Rather than keep asking me my views on communism, perhaps you aught to read them, I made them clear in the "end is nigh" thread.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeWhilst no fan of Communism or Socialism, I must agree with Shavi that Blair is a million miles from what I percieve a Socialist to be.
Tony Blair is a socialist, I clearly have a saner mind than you do, I have never used an illegal drug, Gordon Brown is even more socialist, Sweden is worse still, Romano Prodi is about as bad as the Swedish government. Rather than keep asking me my views on communism, perhaps you aught to read them, I made them clear in the "end is nigh" thread.
The fair division of wealth? State control of the economy? Anti war ?????? Bevin et al would be amazed at the policies that Blair has pushed through.
He has led to a lot of stupid beaurocratic rules but nothing compared to a true Labour government.
But as almost a free market capitalist and anti be
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeI know your views on communism, you're just wrong.
Tony Blair is a socialist, I clearly have a saner mind than you do, I have never used an illegal drug, Gordon Brown is even more socialist, Sweden is worse still, Romano Prodi is about as bad as the Swedish government. Rather than keep asking me my views on communism, perhaps you aught to read them, I made them clear in the "end is nigh" thread.
You have no idea what-so-ever of what communism/socialism is and stick to an absurd reasoning which is neither here nor there.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by shavixmirSo Shav, I dont like communism and I may have some wrong views as well of communism, so please set me straight. Communism
I know your views on communism, you're just wrong.
You have no idea what-so-ever of what communism/socialism is and stick to an absurd reasoning which is neither here nor there.
1. has historical come into power via a bloody revolution and not through free and fare elections.
2. removes the right of the population to vote and therefore the initial ruling party remains inpower indefinitely
3. restricts the right of the press to publish what they like
4. stops the free movement of people across international borders and also within national borders, people are not able to move freely.
5. removes religious freedom.
Let me know what is incorrect.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by shavixmirI sure would like to know the difference between Pure socialism and pure communism. Always thought that socialism was basically the redistribution of wealth. Could never figure out how a communist state could function. No yelling, Sie Gupster!
I know your views on communism, you're just wrong.
You have no idea what-so-ever of what communism/socialism is and stick to an absurd reasoning which is neither here nor there.