[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - this is factual. The VP is the "President of the Senate" by constitutional law. The fact that they have not, for the last 50 years or so, presided regularly over the Senate Chamber does not make the statement false. In fact, on certain occasions, the VP will still preside.

In the context which she states it, however, it's not. The Vice President is not able to totally control everything the members of the Chamber do or say. While they act as a presiding officer and can cast tie-breaking votes (only in the case that there is in fact a tie on an issue, that is), address specific members' appeals, and call to order the Chamber (among some other things), they really are quite limited in what they can do, which is why most don't even bother anymore (for better or worse).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I did a quick google search on the other two comments. The "God elects presidents" came up blank, so I could only comment if I see the context.

There's several different quotes from her about it floating the round, but the specific one I was referring to was the one where she said "God will help me decide what to do in 2012," word for word. It reminded me to a startling extent of Bush's statement that god had told him to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for a Russian comment, not sure which one your referencing. Not that its important, but we can always discuss it.

The one where she was discussing diplomacy with the Russian Federation and other "enemies of the United States" and said, "You can see Russia from Alaska"?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for "Communists" and "Socialists" - let me put it this way.

"Green Energy Czar" - Van Jones - self identified COMMUNIST.

Van Jones is not a "self-identified Communist". You're thinking of his institution supporting the rights of the pro-Marxist group STORM, from the 1990s (by the way, Marxism is not modern Communism; it was the foundation for Leninism which gave rise to the theory of modern Communism with the inclusion of Stalinism).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"Energy Czar" Carol Browner - formerly listed as a member of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (though in all fairness, she "highly regards" Mao, a Communist)

You're thinking of her membership in the CSWS. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society is there to create diplomatic ties and international, fair governance with nations the world over; it hasn't been a part of Socialists International for nearly 35 years.

I typed in "Carol Browner, Mao, highly regards" into Google, AskJeeves, and Yahoo! and got no results back. Though this doesn't surprise me, because contrary to the idiocy and half-mindedness that has gone in to creating this myth, Communists do not like Socialists, Socialists do not like Communists. So assuming she was in fact a member of Socialist International, she would not even bother commenting on Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist revolution.

The theory of modern Socialism (let alone the theory of a Social Democracy, which I identify myself with) is over a hundred years older than the writings of Marx and Engels, just so everyone here knows.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

*Do a quick google search on her name - you will find the data.*

Did. Just found her membership to the CSWS, nothing about her being a member of Socialists International- nor did I find her quote about Mao Zedong. Though if she did say that she "highly regards" Mao, can't really say I could blame her. I mean, he successfully took over one of the planet's most populous nations and then turned it into a military, industrial, and economic giant that still exists as such now. Whether people want to admit to it or not, that's an impressive feat.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for the differences, socialism is focused purely on the economy, where communism is concerned with both the economy and political structure. Its also often missed that socialism can tolerate a level of capitalism, provided its controlled centrally, where communism cannot abide the free market in any form.

These would depend on the type of Socialism you're discussing. Utopian Socialism is not the same as Social Libertarianism (Utopian Socialism is what you're thinking of when describing the "differences" here, where the state of the nation and society of a whole are focused on entirely by improving elements of the economy, market, trade, etc.- basically anything related to finances; it does not, however, bother to comment on how such a society would be sustained, whereas Social Libertarianism focuses almost entirely on the same tired old things like freedom, justice, you know the drill), just as Democratic Socialism is not the same as Market Socialism. They all believe in the means of production and equality, that much is true. But otherwise, they are all very, very different. This is what sets us apart from Communists. Communism has very few differences (if any) between its many theories: Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. all hold the ideas of means of production, equality, a classless and stateless society, common ownership, anti-Capitalism, and freedom-from-oppression.

I ascribe myself to the Social Democracy theory, which actually fully accepts and endorses Capitalism; it just states that the corporations and businesses are what need to be regulated, not the actual marketeering system itself. It's because of the work of Social Democrats that we have things today like the national parks system (which Theodore Roosevelt almost immediately supported), labor rights, elements of fair trade, consumer rights and protections, guidelines for modern-day civil rights, enforced secularism within the state (the reason why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously), social security, and funding for alternative fuel sources.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So yes, I am familiar with the differences.

You are somewhat informed of the differences, but not as much as you seem to think.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And its also obvious my statement was correct about the president , and those he chooses to advise him, are in fact either Communists, or Communists and Socialists, depending on the person.

Ignoring the contradictions between what you've said and what the reality of the matter is, why is it exactly that you seem to think Socialism (or Communism, for that matter) is "bad" and Capitalism is "good"? While I would be inclined to agree with you about Communism because it has essentially no differences between its theories, Socialism has a wide variety of theories to select from.