Communism sounds good on paper, but you can see what it's done to other countries who have implemented it. Dictatorship? No one should ever have that kind of power.
2007-12-29 08:32:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by MassLass 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No dictatorships but a modified system of social order in which the needs of the many are met is certainly a worthy objective .
The cost of this war and the debt we have amassed in just 7 years would have been enough to pay for health care for all people for 10 years .
We create more then any nation on earth because most people are educated and understand hard work leads to prosperity and security .
What we spend that profit so to speak on is a different matter .
How the pie is divided has been controlled far to long by those people who seek power control and wealth not for the sake of charity but out of pure evil and greed .
Hell if I was elected not one person would have more then 50 million dollars . No one is worth it . Only companies to provide health care and retirement benefits for workers could amass wealth which would be distributed among the workers .
2007-12-29 16:38:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by TroubleMaker 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Communism focuses more on the negative than the positive. Its goal is to eliminate religion, capitalism, social classes, personal property, human dignity, replacing God with the state, because communists don't like the idea of God. They think humans are basically animals with no spiritual existance except to eat, drink, sleep, and work for the state. No wonder the communist utopia is actually a hell hole. Dictatorships can be of varying degrees of power, but having an unchecked person or party in control is generally only good for the person or party in control.
2007-12-29 16:40:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe both are inevitable, once small a group amasses great political and economic power. Power corrupts, and increasing greedy people are collecting power by helping each other gather more and more of our hard-earned wages. Just because we have an abundance of luxury consumer goods at relatively low prices does not mean that a dictatorship is not already in the making. At what cost does it benefit each of us to have new cars, fancy clothes, jewelry, and entertainment if we lose control over every detail of our personal lives to some outside power that hides behind the, "It's for everyone's wellbeing" slogan?
2007-12-29 16:50:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by correrafan 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Communism, the Russian kind got mixed up in the ruthless oppression and barbaric excesses of dictatorship and we will never know if it might have worked. Dictatorships are always brutal to their people restricting the peoples free will and destroying the pursuit of happiness.
2007-12-29 16:51:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by razor 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why does the Communist Party believe it is so important that Democrats win?
"Whereas a few weeks ago only a handful of House and Senate seats were considered 'competitive,' now more than 50 House seats are in play and more than a dozen Senate seats," the statement continues. "A change of 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate would change control of Congress. Members of the congressional Progressive, Black, Hispanic and Asian-Pacific caucuses would chair half of the House committees and sub-committees."
The party urges members to get involved in the election at every level – including the following ways:
"Volunteer to phone bank with your union, neighborhood association or political organization."
"Go door to door in your neighborhood or in citywide mobilizations on behalf of candidates you support."
"Know and discuss with voters the basic issues. Explain why changing Congress is so crucial to reversing the extremist, right-wing thrust of the Republicans."
"Volunteer to be a poll watcher or election judge on Election Day."
"'Protect the vote.' Volunteer with groups working to prevent the right wing's 'voter suppression' and 'vote theft' tactics. Know the election laws and be an advocate for people whose right to vote is under attack."
"Register your family, neighbors and co-workers to vote and bring them to the polls on Nov. 7."
"Help give reminders and rides to get out the vote on Election Day."
The major emphasis of the Communist Party campaign for Democrats is the war in Iraq – and support for the plan by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for early withdrawal.
"The pressure for troop withdrawal is growing, so much so that earlier this summer Democrats introduced two resolutions in the Senate," explained a story in the party's People's Weekly World newspaper. "One, authored by Senator Kerry, envisions a short exit strategy and a role for the international community. The other, which has the support of nearly 40 Democratic senators and may be re-introduced this fall, calls for troop withdrawal beginning this winter, but the flaw is that it leaves the process open-ended, which is precisely what Bush does."
The party believes the Democrats will withdraw early from Iraq if they take power in tomorrow's election.
"The media spin has been that the Democrats are split on the war. The real story is that 85 percent of the Democrats in Congress voted for withdrawal and are in step with the majority public opinion," explained another article on the party's website. "Eight months ago, two Democratic senators were for withdrawal; two months ago it was four. This past week 39 Democrats in the Senate voted for withdrawal and the need for non-military support for the reconstruction of Iraq."
Just so there could be no mistake about the party's intentions to support a Democratic Party victory, Judith LeBlanc, national vice-chairwoman of the CPUSA, added: "The Democratic Party and its candidates are only as strong politically and economically as the mass movements behind them. The greater participation of the Party and Left, the more effective the movements are, the more likely we can deliver a blow to the Right in November."
The Democratic Party has refused to respond to WND's story last week that quoted a variety of Middle East terrorist leaders urging American to vote Democratic.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.
2007-12-30 01:53:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Johnny Reb 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They both confer rights to persons; and do not address individual freedom from government imposed beliefs, "morals", or freedom of thought.
Here, rights are inherant, inborn.
Both; provide rights to people.
Freedom respects a persons right to be free from government influence in personal life, and does not require a form of adherance to a belief system to be consdered a good citizen.
Adherance is a requirement to the beliefs, presentations and expectations of the "authorities", within both, and there are social, economic, and further sanctions imposed for non-compliance. There is not a clear route to a Justice system based in individual rights.
2007-12-29 16:41:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by towwwdothello 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Posting stutter?
2007-12-29 16:31:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both are morally reprehensible in my opinion.
2007-12-29 16:35:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋