Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How are todays' Democrats best categorized as socialists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Posted on 04/22/2007 6:34:41 PM PDT by Miztiki

I'm reading about socialism on wikipedia and wondered how the Democrats of today would best be categorized. Are they social democrats? Reformist socialists? Moderates? Are they socialists according to definition of socialism at all?

Are they Marxists who see socialism as the "transition between capitalism and communism, the final stage of history"?

Do they only want a "welfare state"?

For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
There's a good description of socialism on wikipedia, what it means, the different flavors, history of it, etc. if anyone wants to look it up. There are many other "isms" within the text that lead to more info too.
1 posted on 04/22/2007 6:34:45 PM PDT by Miztiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

The Democrat party of today is split between the old Roosevelt socialist lite folks and the new hard core leftists who embrace both socialiasm and marxism.

Many of them can not speak to either of the latter. They merely rant the feel good propaganda that both idealogies have made part and parcel in the quest to take America from within.


2 posted on 04/22/2007 6:37:34 PM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

They are all creeping totalitarians—some want to run and some would creep more slowly. But they are all heading to the same destination. Ideological details are unimportant. I don’t care about the fine differences between socialists, communists and national-socialists. They all hate God and they all want to engineer my life and my children’s lives into something abhorrent.


3 posted on 04/22/2007 6:38:22 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

4 posted on 04/22/2007 6:39:00 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

5 posted on 04/22/2007 6:40:27 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
There is no "me" in comrade Gore's Amerika.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
6 posted on 04/22/2007 6:41:29 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
The Democrats have also combined socialism with a Nanny State mentality. While the old Socialists (not Communists) valued individual foibles the Democrats want cradle to grave control over our health, vices, beliefs, and dreams as well as where we live ("planned growth") and how much energy we use (the "global warming" scam). They have become self-appointed "benevolent dictators".

I think they see average people as mental patients and themselves as the guards.
7 posted on 04/22/2007 6:41:51 PM PDT by cgbg (Help! I am a prisoner in LKOT (Leftist Kook Occupied Territory.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Oh, that's good. That's very good. My compliments to whoever did that one.
8 posted on 04/22/2007 6:43:30 PM PDT by RichInOC ("Who are those guys?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Gosh you really illustrate so well in a personal way. It’s all bad and as you said.


9 posted on 04/22/2007 6:43:56 PM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
"For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?:

Despotism.

10 posted on 04/22/2007 6:44:26 PM PDT by flying Elvis ("In...War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst" Clausewitz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Commie, Pinko, Fascists.
11 posted on 04/22/2007 6:44:44 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Islam is the religion of violins, NOT peas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Fabian Socialists. Like the Fabian Society in the U.K., they’ve come to the conclusion that Marx and Engels were right, but that all that class warfare proletarian revolution language will never sell. Therefore, they’re out to achieve the ultimate goal of a socialist society, but by using the methods of Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator: stealth, patience, subversion, and harassment.


12 posted on 04/22/2007 6:44:57 PM PDT by Flatus I. Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

That one was one of mine done just this morning. Feel free to snag it if you wish.


13 posted on 04/22/2007 6:45:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Barack Obama is more of a Fabian Socialist. I’d have to categorize Hillary as more of a radical Marxist-socialist. Dennis Kucinich, probably more of a wacko-socialist. The others? I don’t know, probably socialists similar to those of Sweden and France.
14 posted on 04/22/2007 6:45:35 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

It varies. There are some who are old Roosevelt/Kennedy Democrats, strong on national defense and believe in socialism-lite, most of those seem to be from the southwest or Great Lakes region. Coastal Dems seem to tend more towards Social Democrats or out-and-out Socialists. I’ve met very very few true blue Communists who claim to be a member of anything but a fringe party.


15 posted on 04/22/2007 6:46:37 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

16 posted on 04/22/2007 6:47:52 PM PDT by The South Texan (The Drive By Media is America's worst enemy and American people don't know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Where does the term “Statist” fit into the socialist world?


17 posted on 04/22/2007 6:50:58 PM PDT by Thebaddog (Labrador Retrievers forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

ANTI-AMERICA COMMUNISTS.....and that just covers the RAT Party “purists......the rest are just a bunch of stupid dolts.


18 posted on 04/22/2007 6:55:50 PM PDT by Howie66 (To the RAT Party: How can I question your patriotism? You have none, so what's your point?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

The Milwaukee socialists are very much into full blown surrender — both at home to illegal immigrants and abroad to the islamofascists. I don’t see a thread of national security values among the voting population or the elected officials on a local level here.

Oh, and handouts a plenty as well.


19 posted on 04/22/2007 6:56:30 PM PDT by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

Thats the way I see the issue as well. You’re dead on.


20 posted on 04/22/2007 7:00:49 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
If you really want to understand American Democrats, go read The Promise of American Life by Herbert David Croly. You can find it on Project Gutenberg.

Published in 1909, this book basically lays out the arguments for "socialism with an American face." E.g.:

What makes this book most interesting is not so much the book itself -- it really is the definitive smug treatise on the virtues of a planned political economy -- but the list of who read it and thought it was brilliant. For example, Theodore Roosevelt became an ardent and vocal admirer of Croly's ideas; thankfully, after he left office. Taft implemented some of Croly's ideas without crediting the source, and strong echoes of Croly's "New Americanism" show up in Wilson's "New Freedom" and Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal," as well as in the decisions and opinions of Croly fans Judge Learned Hand and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.

Of more immediate importance to Croly himself, the book drew the attention of Willard and Dorothy Straight, who along with Walter Lippmann subsequently founded "The New Republic" magazine and hired Croly to be Editor-in-Chief. He remained in this position for the rest of his life, enthusiastically publishing the works of the British Fabian Socialists and their American imitators, and laying the foundations for modern American "progressive" and "liberal" thought.

21 posted on 04/22/2007 7:01:26 PM PDT by Flatus I. Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
You need not so much a description as a definition. To avoid stepping into marxism, and then having to clean one’s shoes, the definition better be NOT economical but sociological: socialists are collectivists without exception, with hillary’s “we are going to take away your things for the common good” serving as a good illustration. In practice, such proclaimed primacy of the group over the individual and its necessary corollary - the subjugation of the individual - manifests itself in that ideated group becoming fictitious and serving merely as a cover for the nomenclatura oligarchy, for whom and by whom such a system is run. Now, elements of such system could be found everywhere [adventures of the US nomenclaturist Sandy Berger come to mind]. Thus one comes to an arbitrary threshold value of “socialism quotient”.
22 posted on 04/22/2007 7:02:21 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
Where does the term “Statist” fit into the socialist world?

"Statist" is just another synonym.

Politics can be expressed in terms of cows. There are some variations to the theme, but it goes something like this:

Socialism/Communism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and then gives you some of the milk.

Fascism - you have two cows, and the government confiscates them and sells you the milk.

Nazism - you have two cows, and the the government shoots you and takes them.

Capitalism - you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

23 posted on 04/22/2007 7:04:44 PM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

” How are todays’ Democrats best categorized as socialists? “

Progressive taxes.


24 posted on 04/22/2007 7:07:12 PM PDT by Son House ( The Presidents enemies, are my enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Yes


25 posted on 04/22/2007 7:08:00 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (What's the difference between the CIA and the Free Clinic? The Free Clinic knows how to stop leaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Real socialists are a minority among the democrats anymore. By this I mean the “true believers” like Teddy Kennedy and Hillary. The rest are not ideologically pure and are more a duke’s mixture of screwed up beliefs.

Bill Clinton was an interesting case, more like a Mafia boss than a leader, wanting the entire democrat party and later the entire government working for him and only him. He would not allow and deeply distrusted anyone around him who was not “dirty” enough to be ruined at his whim, and felt no loyalty whatsoever to his toadies and lickspittles.

Hillary, on the other hand, embraces extremism anywhere she finds it, and has nothing but contempt for democratic forms, preferring liberal “elites” to craft policy for her. She sees the world as black and white, so individuals are either her friends or her enemies.

As far as commonality in their party, I would say that they remain together out of shared hatred. While they don’t all hate the same things, they all have bitter hatred towards something. And this hatred manifests itself as meanness and crudeness. Many of them are blind to their own hatred, and think that only they can feel oppressed, that those that they hate are incapable of feeling.


26 posted on 04/22/2007 7:10:34 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
I would call them Incremental Socialists. Deep down inside, they agree with the tenets of socialism, but they know that, in the U.S., they can't get everything they want in one fell swoop. Instead, they chip away, little by little, always keeping their eye on the prize. I would say that they have been very successful up to this point. If only those that we choose to represent our side were so dogged.
27 posted on 04/22/2007 7:10:54 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason (Advocacy journalism has killed the news business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

If you are looking for parallels, look to the Roman Empire in the last days—the government taxed everything and then paid for indulgences for the people. When the democrats can access all private wealth, then they will redistribute it according to the desires of the powerful. One last question—where is the Roman Empire today?


28 posted on 04/22/2007 7:11:02 PM PDT by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

I think they are neo-feudalists.


29 posted on 04/22/2007 7:11:11 PM PDT by Duke Nukum (Linux: More of a cult then an OS. Mac: Beyond a Cult. A joyless Jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
The 1918 Soviet Constitution had a clause which stated: "He who does not work shall not eat," which carried over into Stalin's later constitution of 1936.

I don't see Democrats supporting such 'right-wing' ideas.

30 posted on 04/22/2007 7:12:07 PM PDT by Aikonaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.


31 posted on 04/22/2007 7:12:37 PM PDT by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

They are NOT socialists, they are communists of the Marx variety out to destroy America.


32 posted on 04/22/2007 7:12:50 PM PDT by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Of the many definitions:

liberal: n. One who is open-minded... at others' expense.

democrat: n. One who buys things... at others' expense.

33 posted on 04/22/2007 7:14:51 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Today's Democrats are barely to the right of Leon Trotsky, Valdimir Lenin, Karl Marx and Josef Stalin.

Today's Republicans are to the left of Hubert Humphery, who was a raving libereal in his day.

34 posted on 04/22/2007 7:18:33 PM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Democrats as a party are a mix of different Socialists, but for the most part, as guiding philosophy to achieve practical goals they are :

Fabian Socialists.

Fascists - government’s/state’s control of means of production and services and education, yet not necessarily state’s ownership of means of production and services. As Hitler famously said “Why own when you can control?”

Kind of like dual-stock structure in NY Times, Pinch owns very little of NYT stock, so when stock goes down the shareholders bear the brunt of it, yet he has complete control of “voting stock” in managing NYT - his own “controlling legal authority”.


35 posted on 04/22/2007 7:21:57 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: romanesq; ModelBreaker

On that general theme, see the second quote on my FR home page, the two-paragraph one by Hayek.


36 posted on 04/22/2007 7:24:27 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
"Hillary, on the other hand, embraces extremism anywhere she finds it, and has nothing but contempt for democratic forms, preferring liberal “elites” to craft policy for her."

That is called Maoism. Pol Pot could not have killed all those people without spies everywhere.

37 posted on 04/22/2007 7:26:34 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
For instance, what is Hillary? What type of "ism" does she envision for our country?

Read my tagline.

38 posted on 04/22/2007 7:27:30 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

The funny thing about Democrats and socialism is that they run the gamut of Socialists. Some are soft socialists a la FDR. Some are disciples of Third Way Socialism (i.e. Fascism) and see a perfect union of industry run by corporations, but ultimately controlled by the government through heavy regulation. A few are hardcore Communists (they don’t confess it, otherwise lynch mobs would form), such as Queen Hillary, who strangely betrayed her true self when she said “we will take things from you for the common good.”


39 posted on 04/22/2007 7:30:20 PM PDT by Quick or Dead (Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Actually the real description of a Democrat is a baby murdering, back stabbing, muck diving, scum bag sewer dwelling, just on the bottom side of a naivete cut and run coward.

Also see the descriptions as given under Jessie Jackass, Murdering Ted Kennedy, Traitor John French Kerry, Cigar Billy Clinton, Racists Al Sharptongue, Anti-American George Sor@ss, Hairy Read, Nancy Peloser, Dickie Turdbin, John Kookie Edwards, Congression Black Caucau, NAACPeepee, Babs The Nose Streisand, Rosie The Anal Mouth O’Donnellll, Sean No Cents Penn

40 posted on 04/22/2007 7:33:02 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (Kalifornia, DUNCAN 08, ELECTION 2008, MOST IMPORTANT OF MY LIFE TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Democrat, Socialist...same thing.

Most of their supporters at the ballot are simply ignorant.

Some are agenda driven.

Curiously, whenever I travel out of my home area, I always seem to meet intelligent folks who are not brainwashed.

Definitely it is the big government states and municipalities which are producing mindless, nonthinking, lockstep marching Socialists.

41 posted on 04/22/2007 7:33:03 PM PDT by Radix (Want to know what real men are like? Get yourself invited to one of the poker games at my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
I once thought the Democrats were unadulterated socialists, but after eight years of Bill and Hilliary I've noticed that nothing really changed. I've come to realize that both parties have sponsors who are hungry to take their turn at raping the nation. - It's that simple.

None of them are socialists - all of them are scumbag opportunists.

42 posted on 04/22/2007 7:36:46 PM PDT by The Duke (I have met the enemy, and he is named 'Apathy'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Fabian Socialism
43 posted on 04/22/2007 7:37:59 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
Socialist Sanders Fits in Well With Senate Democrats - ...a review of all 125 votes cast by Sanders since his election reveals that, far from being an outlier, Sanders walks almost side by side with his colleagues in the Democratic Party. Thirty-two Democratic senators voted with him at least 95% of the time. Another 13 saw things his way between 90% and 95% of the time. None voted with him less than 85% of the time. On the 15 cloture votes held thus far in 2007 (votes to end debate on contentious issues, i.e., the best test of party loyalty), Sanders has proven even more reliable than some Democrats, voting with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) every single time.

Indeed, you find virtually no daylight between the voting records of the rumpled Vermont socialist (who once said, “I don’t mind really if millionaires vote against me; they probably should”) and millionaire Senate colleagues such as Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.), Herb Kohl (D.-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.). Each voted with Sanders at least 95% of the time. His fellow freshmen, some of whom campaigned as reasonable moderates, have also voted in lockstep with him. Finally, the senate’s two top Democrats, Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), voted with Sanders 96% of the time.

The affinity of many elected Democrats for the worldview Sanders espouses is nothing new. In fact, during the last Congress (when Sanders served in the House), about two-thirds of House Democrats agreed with him at least nine out of 10 times. In the House, though, Sanders’ lone vote didn’t matter; in the Senate, Sanders has already determined the outcome six times, including whether to remove the requirement that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq, grant tax relief to small businesses to offset the negative effects of increasing the minimum wage, mitigate the harmful effects of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extend collective bargaining rights to federal airport security workers.

This remarkable convergence of Senate Democrats with the lone (admitted) socialist in Congress suggests one of two things. Take your pick. Either Senate leaders have successfully domesticated Sanders, convincing him to tow the “moderate” Democratic Party line against his better judgment. Or maybe there really is no distinction between a real socialist and a modern liberal in today’s Democratic Party.


44 posted on 04/22/2007 7:44:07 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

I hated Bill Clinton because he was so malleable. He as governor of AK was pro-life, pro-NRA, fairly conservative. It was only when he ran for higher office that he started going hard left. It was as if the leftists controlled him like a puppet. I thought that was much more dangerous than a true believer like Ted Kennedy. I never understood Clinton. Why be President and not have SOME firm convictions?


45 posted on 04/22/2007 7:44:25 PM PDT by boop (Now Greg, you know I don't like that WORD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Ok now, how many of the following are socialistic moves?

Homosexualism

I take your house/business away from you for a greater purposism

Abortion rights

There was a huge pet food recall so we need the government (as opposed to creating a private entity) to look into itism.

Social Security

Taxes up the buttism

Publik Skoolism

You need a liscense or permit to do anythingism

I’m sure y’all can come up with more.


46 posted on 04/22/2007 7:50:13 PM PDT by Miztiki (The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Eccles. 10:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
A little extension:

An Easy Guide to Political Ideologies using 2 cows.

FEUDALISM:

You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

FASCISM:

You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

UTOPIAN (PURE) COMMUNISM:

You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

APPLIED (REAL) COMMUNISM:

You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

MARXISM:

You buy two cows. Lie about the growth and productivity. The cows get ill and die. No cows, no milk.

MILITARISM:

You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

DICTATORSHIP:

You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

TOTALITARIANISM:

You have two cows. The government takes both and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.

PURE DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

BRITISH DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government does not do anything.

EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows. At first, the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY:

The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". The cows sue you for breach of contract.

CAPITALISM:

You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

HONG KONG CAPITALISM:

You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad feng shui.

COUNTERCULTURE:

Wow, dude, there's like...these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.

LESBIANISM:

You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

You are associated with (the concept of 'ownership' is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

SURREALISM:

You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

47 posted on 04/22/2007 7:53:14 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
The best I can come up with?

How about maternal authoritarianism. Unlike paternal authoritarianism, maternal authoritarianism is best stated as “the state (leftist elite) knows best and no one is allowed to deviate for their own good.

This sounds like communism, but is not necessarily. It mixes elements of communism, fascism, and nanny statism. Remember, key among the left’s current belief’s are the celebration of various perversities. All that is evil is all that they will celebrate.

48 posted on 04/22/2007 7:54:15 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (It is better to die than to live as a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki

Todays modern Democrat, let’s address the leadership of the party as most of the Democrat sheeple are as so many not paying any real attention as to the direction their “Party” has taken, can best be described as “Nihilist”, opposed to “Liberal”. The term of “Liberal” actually is defined as a rather Noble cause, but todays “Liberal” isn’t so noble. The term “Nihilist” provides a more accurate descriptive value of todays Democrat Leadership.


49 posted on 04/22/2007 8:01:33 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miztiki
For now I think they are best modeled as Euro-Socialists. A combination of socialism and capitalism. However, it's whatever they are allowed to get away with. I agree with other posters they are totalitarians at heart, and if allowed to descend to their basest instincts, there'd be a whole lotta slaughterin' goin' on. Anyone who disagrees with them, off to the reeducation camps. "Work makes one free."

Evidence: how much they'd like to take over the health care system. Control. Destroy the 2nd Amendment. Control. Next would likely be invent food crises, nationalize the agriculture system. Disarm, control the food, control the medicine, control the people.

Any good dictator worth his salt knows this.

50 posted on 04/22/2007 8:09:58 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson