2007-08-09 06:12:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You must mean "Red State" conservatives?
Other than distinct languages and cultural norms, nope, not much difference when it comes to their overall goal. Like the old Soviet order, reactionary Republicans care for nothing more than obtaining power and control over others. They desire legislation regulating almost every aspect of our personal lives, such as home & family life, reproductive rights, religion and entertainment. Anything that does not fall in line with the narrow fundamentalist agenda is deemed, in their view, "traitorous." They'll even set aside their fiscally laizze-fairre attitude toward the economy just for the sake of control.
2007-08-09 06:23:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
There are some important differences. For instance, the Communist Party of the USSR was a totalitarian regime with an iron grip on the reins of power for decades, while the Communist Party of the USA was an insignificant third party that never won an election (though, they shared ideaology and recieved funding and support from thier commrades in Moscow).
They are also different in how they've dealt with the fall of Communism. After a brief period of chaos, the 'reds' of the former Soviet Union have more or less returned to power, having abandoned much of thier ideaology in the process - power, afterall, not egalitarian ideals was what brought most of them to the Party in the first place. In the USA, the 'reds' still cling to thier failed ideaology, though in different guises, such as mutli-culturalism, socialism, liberalism, and, my personal favorite: environmentalism.
Yes, Green is the new Red.
2007-08-09 13:43:06 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Red on a Soviet Union represents blood of people that died during Revolution of 1917. As far as red on US flag, not really sure what the colors mean but I do know that stripes represent the original 13 colonies.
2007-08-09 13:18:28 · answer #3 · answered by heylover76 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean the Red States? If so, they are both equally incompetent when it comes to balancing the budget. The red staters whine about liberal tax and spend, but they have run up a huge deficit to finance the war, passing on the burden to subsequent generations. In that sense, they are like the old USSR, since the Soviets were bankrupt by the end of the cold war.
2007-08-09 13:18:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Logically, If you would have to equate the term reds to it's soviet meaning of a socialistic party, then you would have to lump the liberal platform of a government program run state as the answer. Thanks for pointing that out.
2007-08-09 13:36:20 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Reds in the US play baseball in Cincinnati. There having a bad season, but wait till they get Tony Larussa next season
2007-08-09 13:19:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If it comes to the budget balancing and human rights abuse:
yes, I see no difference.
I'd say, the Commie leaders in the USSR were more centrist-leaning conservatives than ultra-red neo-cons.
2007-08-09 14:05:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just in the red states. Well at least now they have teir own states here in the states.
2007-08-09 14:28:55 · answer #8 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't Ronald Reagan - Captain Red - defeat the Soviet Union.
2007-08-09 13:16:20 · answer #9 · answered by DANCER 2 · 3⤊ 6⤋
What reds?
What is with this level of paranoia.?
I believe you right wingers are about to have a hissy fit meltdown.
Welcome to Q&A.
You are new here?
Are you paid to post?
Give me a break. You post here all the time and this is just a new identity you've cooked up.
2007-08-09 13:18:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋