Skip to comments.
ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS
Fiedor Report On the News #280 ^
| 7-28-02
| Doug Fiedor
Posted on 07/27/2002 11:27:25 AM PDT by forest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: Tacis
"ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS?"
Hey, does the Pope wear a funny hat?Is the Pope Catholic?
21
posted on
07/27/2002 12:15:17 PM PDT
by
SuziQ
To: weikel
Our representative government would not be Socialistic if our leaders would simple respect the Constitution with the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
22
posted on
07/27/2002 12:15:35 PM PDT
by
forest
To: forest
No constitution is so perfectly designed that socialist can't ignore it.
23
posted on
07/27/2002 12:17:53 PM PDT
by
weikel
To: SuziQ
"ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS?"
"Hey, does the Pope wear a funny hat?"
"Is the Pope Catholic?" Does al gore loose elections?
24
posted on
07/27/2002 12:19:03 PM PDT
by
ChadGore
To: The Duke
I am reminded of the dims' vitriolic reponse to Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech. He knew what was right and what was wrong. He stood up for right and the dims wanted to talk about diplomacy and statesmanship. I wish that GWB would make a stand and stick with it. His speech after the terrorist attacks was a beaut. It has been downhill ever since.
25
posted on
07/27/2002 12:25:37 PM PDT
by
Movemout
To: JessicaDragonet
If you have absolute control of something...you pretty much own it, don't you? Yes you own it without the expense of buying it.
26
posted on
07/27/2002 12:26:36 PM PDT
by
c-b 1
To: forest
Democrats may or may not be socialists, but the Democrat Party has been usurped by Socialists. It is a party dominated by political oxymorons: organized anarchists.
27
posted on
07/27/2002 12:26:44 PM PDT
by
Consort
To: Reeses
"Socialism more closely describes them. "
I agree. The Democrats may not be "pure" socialists, but their ideals are certainly leftist, that is to say, inspired by socialism. So you might as well call them socialists, since that's where there philosophy comes from.
Though I think any of the other names they are called in this article are accurate. For that matter, the Nazis were socialists and fascism also derives it's very similar ideals from the same roots as does socialism.
28
posted on
07/27/2002 12:30:02 PM PDT
by
Sam Cree
To: forest
"
Sure, the Democrats have tried to have government take over segments of business from time to time, but never everything in the country."Au contraire, my friend. In the late fifties there was a proposal in the house of representatives to do just that. I don't remember the creep's name who proposed it, but he was a democRAT. The democRAT party identified strongly with the communists of the twenties and thirties and have never really distanced themselves form them since.
To: c-b 1
Yes you own it without the expense of buying it. In my neck of the woods...we call that stealing.
To: forest
i hate it when even conservative commentators get taken in by the democratic rhetoric. democrats are socialists, and they would like nothing better than to nationalize as many industries as possible.
democrats are certainly anti-capitalists. 'capitalists and the greedy' are their favorite terms to alienate people from the conservative ranks and make the democrats seem more compassionate and fair. the accumulation of capital to put people to work and forward the economy is not what the democrats are all about. they despise the wealthy and tax them as much as they can -- so they have much less wealth (capital) to utilize.
democrats are control freaks and try to control the popular news medium -- same as communists and socialists. free speech is out, debate is out. control is in.
democrats want to nationalize as many industries as possible. the most recent has been airport security. but they long for the days of government owned utilities. the democrats simply do it one at a time because it is more palatable to the american public.
the democratic philosophy of fairness, like marxist theory, is based on a biblically flawed ideology. remember the parable of the talents -- and i can give more.
democrats pass laws to have people check up on us. every beaurocracy in place has people checking something, be it the safety of cars, emissions from factories, looking into our lives, etc. the socialists do this to, with an explicit reason to keep power.
yes the democrats are socialists. they are willing to overthrow the government slowly, one at a time, through evolution, instead of through revolution as marxist predicted.
31
posted on
07/27/2002 12:52:15 PM PDT
by
mlocher
To: forest
socialists...commies...marxist....scum of the earth
32
posted on
07/27/2002 12:55:04 PM PDT
by
arly
To: tcostell
The Italian dictator Mousolini said fascism was a misnomer, it would more correctly be called corporatism. I would consider the democrats socialist/marxist, the neoconservatives fascist.
33
posted on
07/27/2002 1:03:33 PM PDT
by
steve50
To: forest
Idiotism? Idiotists?
To: Reeses
>> Not really, it's the lawyers, almost all Democrats, that favor
>>private ownership, else they're out of their cash
>> cow
When you look at the RICO forfeiture 'regulations' (for which we can thank dear old Rudy, hero of 911 lest anyone forget), the class action lawsuit nightmare, and the confiscatory taxation it's obvious that the attack on private ownership is well under way.
Given the propensity for the use of race and class divisions to gain power, the use of force to terrorize or 'send a message' so characteristic of the Reno Justice department at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and with poor little Elian, and the party control of the propaganda organs, I have little trouble seeing the democratic party as a National Socialist or Nazi party bent on total control.
And we, my largely caucasian conservative, christian friends, are the 'jews' in this scenario. Look at the way they talk about us. Like we steal from the poor, take unfair advantage, have all the money, all the luck, keep everybody else down.
I've had a feeling we've been heading for political violence in this country for over a decade, but it just seemed so darned unlikely. Well it doesn't seem so unlikely anymore. A couple more destabilizing blasts from al-Qaeda and I believe that it'll be on. And that WILL be a victory for them because it's wwhat they've wanted all along.
OK, gotta go to the gun store while I still can. Fortunately we can still resist and I live in a citizen carry state.
35
posted on
07/27/2002 2:01:24 PM PDT
by
johnb838
To: steve50
The renowned Economist Frederich Hayek said that Fascism is what happens when you realize that socialism will never work without force. Once you begin to use force, you abandon socialism's ideals for fascism's practicalities.
A better source than a failed italian dictator I think.
The closest thing we have to fascists in this country right now are on the left, and promoting the idea of "thought crimes" (hate crimes). They believe in free speach, so long as it's an opinion that they agree with. Otherwise, they brand it as "hate speech" and try deperately to supress it.
36
posted on
07/27/2002 2:01:48 PM PDT
by
tcostell
To: Reeses
The more I learn about this modern 'progressive' democracy the less I'm convinced there is any difference at all between it and socialism.
37
posted on
07/27/2002 2:03:21 PM PDT
by
johnb838
To: tcostell
My apologies for my horrible spelling.
38
posted on
07/27/2002 2:03:51 PM PDT
by
tcostell
To: tcostell
Join the crowd of lousy spellers!
My spelling mind quits functioning as I type at the computer keyboard.
To: forest
Socialism, after all, implies outright nationalization of the means of production. Government would take ownership of all business.I would use a more fundamental definition: Socialism is the dilution of individual personal strife, a risk management system, akin to a marriage.
Liberty is the idea that the individual belongs to himself and the earth first, and cannot be 'born into' such a marriage.
A free nation is one that acknowleges there need be no other impetus to an individual other than his local investment in the earth (property) and the love of his neighbor to insure the commitment of his very life, his grand asset, in defense of these.
These free people, sovereign men, create a mechanism to protect that 'way of life', to manage the overlay of civil functions so that these functions themselves remain congruent with the ideal of liberty.
Such a government does not 'force', the overlay provides the system of justice and law where the individual is supreme. That is all.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson