<< Sancho..picking on my spelling is a pretty clear evidence of a lack of argument >>

You have no argument. It's the standard Boaz formula of rambling non-sequiturs finished off with random Bible quotes. The spelling is all there is to pick on!

Paul L. – “there are very few real socialists left”?.

There may be a few billion Chinese, as well as many Laotians, Cubans and Vietnamese that may disagree with that notion.

Although those are the classic Marxist-Leninist Republics, there are also other States who retain specific references to socialism within their Constitutions – India, Venezuela, Bangla Desh, Tanzania, Egypt and Guyana for example – as well as many others who have been periodically and democratically governed by Socialist Governments from time-to-time.
Social Democrats (such as in Norway) are basically "socialism-lite" and mainly involved in establishing welfare states within the existing systems. They grew out of the socialist movement, just as modern corporatism came out of the Fascism of the 1930's.

Perhaps the next real threat to our "current way of life" may not be coming from the Left at all.

Socialist revolutions seem to be the result of too much right-wing oppression, not from sinister back-room plots alone.

wobbles, you are wasting your time with polycarp et al.

but you seem sensible and knowledgeable, and that's in short supply, particularly in a thread concerned with 'sedition'. have you found out how democracy works, in california and switzerland?

Wobbles,

The only real socialists left in China are kept on museum display immersed in embalming fluid. China is far more akin to a fascist state that a communist one these days.

And the suggestion that the results in Bolivia and Venezuela are the consequence of community support for socialism is just as laughable.

Social democract may have evolved out of socialism but they are NOT socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Look up socialism in any dictionary you like, but please don't ask me to accept your, or any other posters, wishy-washy feel-good definition.

Paul.L: << Social democract (sic) may have evolved out of socialism but they are NOT socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Look up socialism in any dictionary you like, but please don't ask me to accept your, or any other posters, wishy-washy feel-good definition. >>

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that your very narrow and negative definition of socialism mightn't encompass the breadth of the ideology?

For example, the entry at Wikipedia is probably better than any dictionary's necessarily scant definition, and it specifically refers to social democrats as socialists of a kind that propose "selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Also, it is correct that the SA is a fringe group of "Trots", the vast majority of whom tend to be rather grubby, if idealistic, undergraduate uni students. I don't think anybody except Porky et al takes them seriously (other than themselves, of course).

Dear Steel,

I apologise for taking so long to respond
to your post directed to me.

I missed reading it.

Regarding the rights of homosexuals,
you may be interested in the following
website:

www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/184/ - 16k -

I googled:

Homosexuality - The Law in Australia

It seems that the laws are changing from state to state.

Take care.