His track record proves that he is far, far beyond "Democrat" or "liberal." Why doesn't he just admit that he is a Socialist since he claims to be honest?
2007-08-13 17:16:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Socialism is not limited by definition to state ownership, but includes state control of manufacture & distribution.
Kucinich's Examples: Cleveland's Municipal Light, his plan for Health Care & his plan to withdraw from NAFTA. Government ownership and government control.
Certain respondants asked for examples. Thre are three strikes right there.
2007-08-13 23:42:45 · update #1
Socialism is not limited by definition to state ownership, but includes state control of manufacture & distribution.
Kucinich's Examples: Cleveland's Municipal Light, his plan for Health Care & his plan to withdraw from NAFTA. Government ownership and government control.
Certain respondants asked for examples. Tehre are three strikes right there.
2007-08-13 23:43:33 · update #2
Does it even matter? The poor little man stands absolutely NO CHANCE...
2007-08-13 17:22:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Once again a poster overstates the case. Socialism 'requires' that the state owns the means of production and distribution. Basically all workers work for the state. There is no 'private' sector. The right wing talk show folks have used this 'begging the question' fallacy to excellent advantage. The statement, "His track record proves he is far beyond 'democrat' etc. is a good example. The poster here tries to get his audience to accept his premise without any supporting evidence. Denis may be a bit radical, but only on certain issues...he's never suggested that the state own the means of production and distribution. So we can discount that charge. The poster also uses the term 'liberal' as a pejoritive noun....using his own definition of the word...a definition that doesn't exist in the dictionary. This is called a 'strawman argument'. The reader is invited to defend 'socialism', rather than challenge the charge. Nice try, but clumsy.
2007-08-14 01:03:02 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
For the same reason Ron Paul won't run as a Libertarian. They can't get elected otherwise.
Why sweat Kucinich?
2007-08-14 00:23:29 · answer #3 · answered by BOOM 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Do you even know what a socialist is? No, seriously... I'd like you to answer that and please be my guest to look up the term and definition in a political text book.
2007-08-14 00:34:12 · answer #4 · answered by cattledog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think he would finally have to admit that he is an elf first, odd looking little dude.
Americans don't even know what "socialists" look like. Try going to Europe, they got it going on there, and it works quite well.
2007-08-14 00:27:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
He wouldn't admit it if his life depended on it. In his view, he's right and everyone else is whacked. In my previous line of work, we called this delusional thinking.
2007-08-14 00:23:36 · answer #6 · answered by nomad74 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shame on you Olesya C!
2007-08-14 00:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Socialist!!! The word is Communist!!! He is a tiny worm in a rottten apple
2007-08-14 00:25:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Please provide credible reference to which track record you are referring to, otherwise, you are jus another right-wing slander slinger!
2007-08-14 01:00:16 · answer #9 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because liberals can only get elected when they pose as moderates....
ahem...cough cough...carter, clinton..cough...
2007-08-14 00:32:37 · answer #10 · answered by jdog 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋