Ah, how refreshing, another brainless "Conservative" who doesn't actually know what a Communist is.
Oh Karnak, come off it. You know as well as I that the difference between a socialist and a communist, per the manifesto itself, is merely one of degree. The underlying ethos of redistribution and central planning seems to survive the transition quite intact (though, notably, "pure" communism, also per the manifesto, has never been achieved anywhere - begging the question, on what definition do you base your distinction?). I would note that also, per Marxist theory, that socialism is defined as a transient phase b/w Capitalism and Communism - i.e., per theory, today's socialists are simply laying the groundwork. That you would be uncomfortable with the label is understandable but, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... you probably shouldn't be afraid to call it a duck.
As for credentials, academic or otherwise, I'm quite comfortable with mine.
Next thing you know, you'll start escalating this ad hominem line, just demonstrating that you'd rather play the man than the ball. In any case, your rather grouchy/tetchy schoolyard taunt doesn't tip me over.
What? Are we upset over the coming deluge of backlash at the annointed one's manifold failures?
Hahaha... Be upset - be very upset. You're quite right about one thing - communism won't see the light of day here, ever. We'll happily snuff it out in its retarded adolescence. Too bad it's leaving such a hefty tab...
Otherwise, I'll cop to a little hyperbole, but then, I'm ex-FSA - thus cadre to you. There's nothing like throwing a lit butt into the rattler pile - and the rattlers are none too happy to start lately.
