$3,000.00 a night room for socialist accused rapist! Whether it's an entire national economy or just a ordinary, lowly maid, Dominique Strauss-Kahn did what he does best: RAPE!!!
Strauss-Kahn, a member of France's Socialist party, was widely considered the strongest potential challenger next year to President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Strauss-Kahn was ordered jailed at least until a court proceeding Friday. He cannot claim diplomatic immunity because he was in New York on personal business and was paying his own way, the IMF said. He could seek that protection only if he were conducting official business, spokesman William Murray said.
Because of his high profile, Strauss-Kahn is being held in protective custody on Rikers Island, away from most detainees, said city Correction Department spokesman Stephen Morello. Unlike most prisoners who share 50-bed barracks, he has a single-bed cell and eats all meals alone there. He has a prison guard escort when he is outside his cell.
Rikers, on an island in the East River between the Bronx and Queens, is one of the nation's largest jail complexes, with a daily inmate population of about 14,000.
Its history includes run-ins between inmates and guards. In one case last year, a guard was sentenced to six years in prison for ordering inmate beatings as part of a rogue disciplinary system. Prosecutors said he imposed order by having teenage inmates beat other teenagers who had stepped out of line.
Also last year, more than a dozen guards were injured while quelling fights between inmates awaiting pretrial hearings. And in February, the city settled a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by the family of an inmate who died after a scuffle with guards.
The French newspaper Le Monde, citing people close to Strauss-Kahn, said he had reserved the luxury hotel suite for one night for a quick trip to have lunch with his daughter, who is studying in New York.
Strauss-Kahn is accused of attacking a maid who had gone in to clean the penthouse suite Saturday afternoon. He is charged with attempted rape, sex abuse, a criminal sex act, unlawful imprisonment and forcible touching. The most serious charge carries five to 25 years in prison.
The 32-year-old maid told authorities that she thought the suite was empty but that Strauss-Kahn emerged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway, pulled her into a bedroom and dragged her into a bathroom, police said.
He grabbed her breasts, tried to pull down her pantyhose, grabbed at her crotch and forced her to perform oral sex, according to a court complaint. She broke free, escaped the room and told hotel staffers what had happened, authorities said. She was treated at a hospital for minor injuries.
"The victim provided a very powerful and detailed account of the violent sexual assault," Assistant District Attorney John "Ardie" McConnell said. He added that forensic evidence may support her account. Strauss-Kahn submitted to a forensic examination Sunday night.
I bet they will try to buy this maid and give her a few million and it goes away!
Ok, nice story. Does that mean because he did a good job at the IMF he did not rape this woman?
Okay, from that article: "Strauss-Kahn had set out on a "kinder and gentler" path, one that would not force foreign leaders to privatize their state-owned industries or crush their labor unions."
So he wants to redistribute wealth (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need) without actually fixing the problem. Sounds like the Democratic Party. I vote to agree that this does sound like socialism.
He is innocent until proven guilty. The evidence we have been given so far appears incriminating, but as we all know there are two sides to any story. I haven't heard enough to formulate an opinion.
Danny, how do you manage to get socialism and hypocrisy into an alleged rape?
That's some mighty spinning even for you.
Our tax dollars going to pay for a $3000.00 dollar a night room that is what they mean by austerity measures?
I think the real crime here is that UN Charter Nations that get money from their respective members states from the citizens of those member state by taxation mostly and then the International Monetary Fund spends it on $3000.00 a night suites. Isn't the UN's
Millennium Development Goals suppose to end much poverty by 2015? How can it do that if its personnel are spending $3000.00 a night for a suite? The other real crime,should also be that any hotel would charge $3000.00 a night for suite in the first place, that is just plain robbery pure and simple. That's about right, You have to live with less, so elite's socialists like him can live it up in $3000 a night hotel rooms and flying first class. Is that not hypocrisy?
The UN had paid for a night in an hotel for a private visit to see his daughter, do you really think so?
"The French newspaper Le Monde, citing people close to Strauss-Kahn, said he had reserved the luxury hotel suite for one night for a quick trip to have lunch with his daughter, who is studying in New York."
It's a shame you don't actually read and understand what you post isn't it?
YES ON THE TAXPAYER! YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS. COME ON JOHN, THEY USE EVERYONE ELSE"S MONEY, NEVER THEIRS!!!
OH I guess only the right does things this way? I forgot your people do not do this...right.
Right Danny, And Pelosi did not buy a plane with taxpayer money because she did not want to fly with the public anymore. They are all guilty of throwing our tax money down the drain
It's just weird Danny, not a comment on the crime he is accused of, just speculation about whether he paid for his own room or not!
Well I'm sure he did it, as he has a history of doing things to women! It is just funny how these so called socialist believe everyone should be equal but they do not have a problem spending 3,000.00 a night for a hotel room! If these people believe in equality how come they are so rich and live better then a lot of capitalist? isn't that hypocrisy? John I truly believe these people do not have anyones best interest at heart! this socialist model only keeps people down and dependent. Yes we need to help the people who truly need it but when we start enabling and not making people responsible for their own actions you create a mess!
CNN did a piece on it this morning. They even interviewed someone from Special Victims. She spells out the incident, WHy they arrested him trying to flee the country. It was very compelling. Does not look good for him
Agreed, it doesn't look at all good for him but my problem is Danny trying to turn it into a rant against socialism.
There's plenty of right wing capitalists been caught with their pants round their ankles, but you wouldn't think so to listen to Danny.
And when he isn't busy ranting against socialists he's muddying the waters with all sorts of accusations that ne must be fiddling his expenses.
Absolutely! This has nothing to do with socialism.. this has everything to do with a man who can't keep his JT in his pants who just happens to be a socialist.
First I started the thread, Second It was about a big time socialist who spends 3,000.00 a night for a room when they preach equality! this is Hypocrisy to me! I did not turn anything around. The man is a dog and thinks he can get away with anything because who he thinks he is! Like I stated they are very good at living the capitalist way and spew their nonsense while keeping many down!
Well make up your mind, first he spent 3,000 of UN money and now he spends 3,000 of his own money!
Show me were it says socialists have to be dirt poor?
If you want to see real hypocrisy look at the capitalists who constantly scream for more money whilst begrudging the minimum wage.
Socialist overlords are always rich. And all knowing, all seeing omnipotentates who know what's best for the little people. Woman should have felt honored.
Correction, overlords are always rich, irrespective of political leanings, and all omnipotences who know what's best for the little people.
Doesn't mean he wasn't set up though.
Oh so now he was set-up? I guess the case against another woman which was dropped didn't show you how he operates with woman? Or the other woman that claimed harassment from him 3 years ago? They were warned. Here we go with the conspiracy theories now! he left in a hurry, left his phone and other stuff behind, blood on the bed, the woman had bruises, but it was planned...is that right John?
Yeah, you're right, John. Looks like those Frenchies play hard politics. Drug him to turn him into a wild sex monkey and send in a poor little maid to lean over the bed. I suppose they did a drug test? Probably bribed the NYPD too.
It doesn't matter if it was his or the IMF's money it is still hypocrisy! I believe it was IMF credit card!
How can you say your for equality when you spend 3k a night for a room and fly first class? Everyone should have the same seat according to you socialist! You bottom dwellers are suckers as these elite take all the money and make you dependent on them! should be ashamed of yourselves! If they were for real they would LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!!
It's just that socialists believe that everybody should be equally rich whilst capitalists believe that most people should be equally poor.
Excellent! Is the glass half full or half empty. Seems like we could accomodate both after all. We could all be equally rich and equally poor. Is that the middle ground? The glass is have full if one is in the process of filling it. The glass is half empty if one is in the process of draining it.
I'm scared of this "your people" nonsense.
This sounds a lot like "me vs. you" garbage.
No it isn't. The man is a European Socialist Elite, King of the World, Despoiler of Nations, Raper of Third World Countries.
As one person put it, he probably mistook the maid for a third world country and just did what came naturally.
Hey, he's not even been tried yet, let alone found guilty!
The guy has form. having said that, he should get a fair trial, and we should await the outcome of the court.
If he did the crime, and the other women who are now coming forward have a case, he should get 20 years with a bit of luck.
If it gets whitewashed and his power influences the outcome then the judiciary needs an overhaul.
Indeed. The guy should get (and deserves) a fair trial, like anyone else accused of a crime.
To use the fact that the guy was accused of rape as an indictment of any -ism is pretty poor reasoning (at best). I mean, has anyone used the Governator's admitted affair (he fathered a child with an employee and hid the fact for ten years) as an indictment of conservatism?* It's not; it's merely a personal failure on Arnie's part, with nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.
*Actually, I'd be kinda surprised if nobody in the world did this; it's the most prominent gambit in the partisan scoundrel playbook: take a personal sin that has nothing to do with politics, and use it as 'evidence' that the person's whole philosophy is useless.
Uhhh....Bell, California. Power currupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No bid contracts. No one follows the money, no one is watching the theiving, lying servants. Double standards abound. Accountability is non-existant. Narcissistic behavior is adored. It's the system, because it's the nature of the species.
power doesn't corrupt, power just lets the person's "evil" have less consequences.
Why NOT indulge in sin if you can just bribe people to not arrest you?
The funniest part is that most liberals / socialists believe in this idea of "power corrupts", yet they want an overarching government to have stronger and stronger control.
Don't know whether he is guilty or not, but
it sure smells fishy. The latest update:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -rape.html
Shake up at the IMF
BRUSSELS: European powers began yesterday to distance themselves from Dominique Strauss-Kahn as current French finance minister Christine Lagarde emerged as their favored replacement to head the IMF. With Strauss-Kahn, one of Lagarde's predecessors, languishing in New York's Rikers Island jail awaiting trial on charges of attempted rape, the European Union has unfinished business with the euro-zone debt crisis and the virtual certainty that Greece will need further financial aid. For that reason, European
Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso told Dutch media that "if a succession is necessary, European Union states should present their candidate.
But emerging powers believe it is time for Europe, the IMF's biggest capital contributor, and the United States, its home, to reconsider arrangements dating back to World War II which share leadership at the IMF and World Bank between the two. Stepping into the fray, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told Dow Jones Newswires on Tuesday that nominations for the International Monetary Fund should be fair and transparent.
Booming China and many other major developing countries feel it is long overdue that they get the senior jobs at the IMF and World Bank so that their interests get a better hearing. Strauss-Kahn, who before his arrest was front-runner for the French presidential polls in 2012, was seen as having brought special connections and understanding to the eurozone debt crisis.
Even before he appeared before a US judge Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders fired the starting gun on the succession issue. As potential runners and riders began to emerge, either way "the feeling is it's not for Europe to budge," said a diplomat who asked not to be named.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.ph … g5OTg0Mjcz
"force foreign leaders to privatize their state-owned industries or crush their labor unions."
What would you call this?
Solving the problem. When the state owns the means of production and the state has its share of (just guessing here) public sector unions it is socialist. Socialism does not work. If you want to take the money then you have to take the medicine that goes with it. First, destroy the unholy alliance between labor unions and the political machine. Second, privatize state run companies.
It is a shame we cannot do that in this country. We have the state-run media, state-run car companies, state-run financial organizations, state-run mortgage companies... and to top it all off the government owns most of the land. Maybe it is time for the government to sell off most of its holdings, reduce tax rates and allow economic freedom to flourish once again.
This begs to differ with you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 817317115#
Are you saying that socialism does work?
Well "work" is a pretty broad term. It "worked" well in France during the 1980's under Mitterand and it works well in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, etc. I think it's really a question of how a particular group/culture wants to live. I used to live in France and still follow the news/ have friends and contacts there. Sarkozy, the current president, is extremely unpopular.
Yes. It is. Sometimes socialism can work very well for brief periods and for small numbers of people with limited desires. It is a shame the real world is not like that.
But it never works over the long term. It relies upon the accumulated wealth of the productive. And you probably realize that people will leave a place that takes far more from them than it gives. So the very best people will naturally flow out of tyrannical countries who take. As an example I took my ability to solve problems from the Failed State of California and moved to Alabama. And the very worst sorts of parasites flow in. Hence the city of Los Angeles looks like any large city in a developing nation.
Boy that's a sad development, the woman is an immigrant from Guinea, West Africa and a Muslim. There was a terrible incident there in that IMF owned country where the president's guards raped a lot of women, all ages, and killed people at a stadium.
Sad that woman finding herself here in this safe place would be raped by the man who is raping her home country.
Whereas most African families live on one dollar per day, Mr. Kahn was soaking in luxury in a lavish $3,000 per night hotel suite. That amount alone, without even one French cigar, croissant or a shot of cognac added to the bill, equals the daily sustenance of 3,000 African families in Guinea today.
This is at a time that the IMF is continuing to force African governments to cut programs for the poor through Structural Adjustment Programs and other controversial economic policies such as devaluation of national currencies.
Meanwhile, Mr. Strauss-Khan is assembling an all-star defence team to be led by Benjamin Brafman, famously remembered as Michael Jackson's pre-eminent lawyer. He appeared in a New York court today, but his lawyers said he would plead not guilty to charges of a criminal sexual act, attempted rape and unlawful.
http://www.saharareporters.com/news-pag … man-guinea
This thread just reveals that most posters have no idea about Socialism, what makes any of the critics here think that Socialism rejects any idea of being wealthy, who put that condition on Socialists, the basic tenets have nothing to do with personal wealth ?
If you all have no idea what you are talking about then it is time you shut up.
I agree! My family is Swedish....I never heard anything about people not being able to make as much $$ as they want!
PLUS--it's just so darn humane!
Do you know, when you have a baby--you get all kinds of special treatment there? In your job, at the hospital, once you get home? And everyone gets this treatment regardless of income. Talk about Pro-Life!! They actually LIVE it, rather than blather on about it!
Did you know--if you want to go back to work, the daycare is provided? Healthcare is provided...
You have no idea how this would improve the quality of life, if we had it here. No idea.
And I'LL BET they pay less in taxes than we do here for goods and services!!
The telling point here is that they live it rather than blather on about it as you say. The hypocrisy rampant in these threads is people putting up what they say is Socialist and then attacking it when it is not socialist in the first place. Those who ignorantly throw around phrases like 'means of production' without any understanding of the phrase, 'state run' and 'state owned' need to go and do an elementary course to get a grip on the elementary basics.
The only issue I have with your post is that the Swedes have a pretty good grip on their economic balance and live within their means, this allows them to provide the necessities such as health care and real child care. Also by using their national wealth for the nation rather than lining the pockets of thieving political bankers and arms dealers - and also by maintaining a defence force rather letting their military strong-arm their government into trade wars.
Does stealing from your neighbors appeal to you? Do you not see the injustice of the state stealing from one group of people to give things to another group of people? Eventually the ones who can vote with their feet, taking their ability to generate wealth to a place that won't steal much of it from them. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Socialist governments always make a mess of things.
Oh right !! I must have missed them socialists 'messing up' in the noise of them good 'ol right wingers bombing the crap out of every socialst leaning government it could find an excuse to attack - that was before they started in on the Muslim world - so you may not remember.
Stealing :- To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
So fail on two counts, taxes aren't taken without right and we give permission by means of the vote.
Also, I am not aware of the state taking from one group of people to give to another exclusively.
Taxes benefit everybody to a greater or lesser degree. For example, my taxes go towards supporting sports facilities, I make no use of these facilities, on the other hand people using the facilities pay taxes that maybe support me, but not them.
Think of it as your car insurance, you may never claim on it or you may one day cause mayhem and run up millions in damages. You will never be expected to carry the whole cost, or even any more than a token amount.
So, socialist governments always make a mess of things do they? And capitalist governments always get it dead right I suppose!
John, please correct me if I am wrong. I lived in Europe (France) for some time during the 1980's. Then of course Mitterand was in power - a socialist. I knew plenty of fairly well-off people who enjoyed very good lives who were "socialists." That term, in most of Europe, had very little of the cultural stigma America has attached to it. Does the same stigma exist in the UK against socisalists?
Yes, but not to the same extreme.
We too have those that rail against "champaign socialists" and think that a well off socialist is not on, some sort of aberration even.
Mind you, though we have had governments who've called themselves socialist, they never are pure socialists, only taking essential businesses and services into state ownership and leaving everything else to the market. Pretty much the ideal way in my opinion.
Thanks John - you really ought to offer more of your British perspective on here - IMO
Perfect. As long as the three wolves can outvote the sheep on what is for dinner all is well.
I understand your argument. When taxes are kept at reasonable levels for everyone then taxes and the uses they are put to may be acceptable. But look at the warfare going on in the US and on Hubpages. The middle class want the rich to pay their fair share. Well, if the rich did pay their fair share the amount of taxes collected from them would have to be lowered significantly.
When I buy insurance I agree with a third party to transfer some of my risks to them in exchange for a fee. Government is not like that. I am not transferring risk. I am enslaved for the benefit of others. And I have no choice in the matter. Except for the obvious choice of rebellion.
I believe so. What do you think? Are any of the socialist nations around the world today a great place to live, work and play? Socialism always leads to tyranny. It begins small. Bureaucrats decide on what kind of toilet you may have and what sort of light bulb you may use. Then they take control of car companies, financial institutions, and insurance companies. They begin to decide how much pay one can have. They decide on how much medicine you may have access to. Eventually they trade commerce for political favors. And then they run out of money. So people must be harassed, punished, and imprisoned, all for the good of the nation. Eventually those in the government resort to theft and murder. It is the path we in the US are already on.
When the US was a free country it made correctable mistakes. When it turned to Marxism it became unbearable.
Actually, I'd like you to tell us of these socialist countries who've made a mess of things entirely on their own, without outside destabilising influences at work.
It wasn't a socialist country, it was anything but.
It was in fact state capitalist, with the state, not the workers owning everything.
Never mind, nice try, now try again.
I see. They claimed they were socialist economically with communism as the political arm. Here we are racing toward socialism with democratism as its political arm.
They claimed . . .
But they were neither socialist or communist, they were out and out state capitalist.
The US is not racing towards socialism, not by a long way.
I like you John but you are beyond convincing. Have a nice day.
No, I'm convinced, it is you who is beyond convincing.
You have an irrational fear of socialism and see a red under every bed.
I am having a very nice day thanks.
Hi John, I am glad. I believe that socialism is a very bad economic model to follow. It is hardly irrational as shown by its brutality, its rapine, its corruption, its failure to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Your mileage may vary.
So...helping your fellow man is encouraging stealing?
And of course we all know how non-socialist governments never screw anything up.
Every government is socialist - by definition, government is a socialist endeavor.
Also, government can NOT be considered charity. It takes its money without direct consent from those taxed. Thus it merely takes one dollar from Joe and gives it to Blow.
And similarly, takes one dollar off blow and gives it to Joe.
It keeps the money moving.
moving money isn't how one measures a healthy economy.
If it were, we'd just throw money between people aimlessly for no reason.... and we'd all starve to death.
Also, you ignored the part about how a tax is simply money being taken from people without direct consent. Is this because you agree?
Well a healthy economy does not have stagnant money, though you no doubt have an Austrian source to say that stagnant money is good money
We wouldn't all starve if we threw money between people aimlessly, we'd all eat.
Maybe we don't have direct consent to collect taxes but we certainly have indirect consent which is just as good.
Think about your stagnant money, it benefits nobody, keep it churning and it helps plenty.
why is it "unhealthy" for me to choose to store my wealth instead of spending it?
Your ideas of economics imply that you should have control over my money.
Money moving around doesn't help people UNLESS IT IS USED TO ACHIEVE PURPOSES THAT PEOPLE FIND VALUABLE!!
Indirect consent is "just as good" as direct consent?! ... you actually believe that?
Imagine if we all saved as much of our money as we could. Whole industries would go to the wall, unemployment would sky-rocket and poor stockbrokers and commodity traders would go hungry.
I don't imply that I should have control of your money.
Name a money movement that nobody finds valuable.
Ha! What a trick question. Ludwig von Mises explains that such a situation wouldn't be possible. Humans act in a way to further benefit themselves.
For example: if I were to steal your money at gunpoint, then eat it, and then jump in a giant blender -- killing myself and destroying the money -- then, by definition, I would have had to have though that I would benefit by doing so. Why else would I do so?
However, wealth is NOT generated in such act because the act was not mutually agreed upon by both parties.
Your demand that "if we all saved as much of our money as we could" chaos would ensue is a foolish argument. Mises, again, explains why: Why would we save the money if we wouldn't think it would benefit us? The very fact that we voluntarily choose to save our money in such a way directly means that we all did so to benefit ourselves.
Human Action is a magnum opus, I highly recommend reading it. ... or at least reading into it.
"The very fact that we voluntarily choose to save our money in such a way directly means that we all did so to benefit ourselves."
This is a false argument based on the premise that people know what they are doing and why they are doing it - which clearly is incorrect.
No, it's not.
You might later think that you made the wrong decision, but before you acted you THOUGHT that you would benefit yourself.
I bought a book the other day because I thought that the 15 bucks was worth less than the book. I was wrong. But, at the time, I believed it would be. Thus I voluntarily chose to use my own property to further gain my life.
Your argument pre-supposes that people are all idiots that need to have someone lord over them.
Of course... that person should be you?
It is unnecessary to be rude just because someone disagrees with you.
Your argument is plain wrong. People know very little and have little or no idea what does or does not benefit them. The simplest decision about what to buy or not buy takes considerable knowledge about the subject and an ability to reason it through. People in general, YOU for instance, think you know but most would disagree with you, so are you right or everyone else ?
Whatever answer you might choose, one or the other is wrong and does not know what they are doing.
sorry if i sounded rude, I didn't mean to be.
But I must emphasize that your side of the argument almost demands that there be a planner to keep people safe from themselves.
once you can find me a holy angel to do so, then perhaps I'll consider letting them be in power.
Maybe this is the same problem as most of your arguments - you cannot change the point of the excercise when you are wrong, it means your point is invalid and you are wrong on that point.
Whether someone is needed to decide or a guardian angel doesn't change the point that people do NOT know what they want.
This then by turn shows that Mises is doing the same thing and putting up false arguments - which by definition means he is wrong and you are following a false idol.
I'm not changing the point, I'm highlighting the part of your argument that you're ignoring.
Evan, you've just lost any credibility you had with me.
Using extreme and unlikely scenarios is, frankly, beyond the pale.
"Using extreme and unlikely scenarios is, frankly, beyond the pale."
Allow me to quote you:
"Imagine if we all saved as much of our money as we could. Whole industries would go to the wall, unemployment would sky-rocket and poor stockbrokers and commodity traders would go hungry."
Good work on that entire "consistency" thing. You've clearly insulted your own behavior. You can't deny this.
But Evan,people saving instead of spending is not an unlikely scenario, in fact it's the way our parents and grandparents conducted their lives.
Somebody stealing and eating your money is not at all likely.
If we all chose to save our money instead of spending it, then that means that we don't WANT the goods and services that are being provided by the market.
Why should someone force me to buy crap I don't want just because some jerk-nugget decided to make it?
It's not my fault that some guy decided to build a factory to produce... oh, i dunno... an egg cracking machine that uses 15 gallons of gasoline to work.
If I choose to save my money instead of spending it, then that means that I value saving over spending.
Sorry, you can't convince me on this one: if I choose to save my money (which I do, I save a huge amount of money and "hide it in my mattress" instead of a bank) then that means that I would rather hold on to the money than spend it on garbage.
Rather wandering off the point now aren't you.
Your reasons for not spending are immaterial, the effect would still be the same.
I'm not off topic, i'm highlighting the part of your argument that you're ignoring.
never mind. the posts are right above this, please re-read what I wrote.
"For example: if I were to steal your money at gunpoint, then eat it, and then jump in a giant blender -- killing myself and destroying the money -- then, by definition, I would have had to have though that I would benefit by doing so. Why else would I do so?"
Eating money and then jumping into a giant blender!
Not if you do it with your money. Yes if you do it with my money. Do you see the difference?
Where ever governments are mischief may be expected. That is why the smallest possible government is best. All governments have two tendencies. First is the accumulation of mediocrity. Second is the tendency toward tyranny. We see both in the US. There is no one more mediocre than President Obama. And he is an emerging tyrant.
"But if helping one's neighbor is deemed a socialistic endeavor upon which we frown we had better re-examine what the nation's founding principles actually were and how we define ourselves as a people going forward. Language should be our friend not turned on its head simply to serve partisan purposes and obfuscate logic."
by Josak4 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by Lady LaShonda8 years ago
Hello Everyone,Just thought I'd post this about Barack Obama's vistory. Election night was so emotional for some of everybody. Tears of joy for this man ran throught the world. Please to tell me what you were doing when...
by SportsBetter15 months ago
Is social security a socialist program?
by Peter Freeman6 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...
by Sophia Angelique7 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
by Charles James7 years ago
So many people are ignorant of socialism or misunderstand it that much of my "political" time on Hubpages is spent working on misconceptions. I have been doing some preparatory work for a nest of hubs about...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.