Will Democratic Socialism Destroy our Republic?

V.F.V. · #1 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

People have been predicting the demise of democracy, individual freedom and liberty, as well as resulting American supremacy, since the day American democracy was born. The implication being that a rich complacent free self-governed people will sooner or later, democratically vote themselves out of individual freedom and back into government dependency, self-invoked tyranny and political bondage.

America’s founding fathers, the greatest human proponents of freedom in history, warned us repeatedly to remain forever vigilant in the protection and preservation of individual liberty and freedom.

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.” - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

The world’s greatest enemies of freedom and liberty have warned us as well.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” - Karl Marx

Today’s Democrat Party is selling change again and they have exactly the same kinds of change in mind that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Alinsky had in mind.

Today’s Democrats call themselves “the Party of the Working Class, the poor, the downtrodden.” They promise to rob from “the rich” for the betterment of the poor. In other words, they are selling exactly what Marx and many other communists have sold over the years, “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

There is nothing new, innovative or exciting about the kinds of change being offered by today’s DNC. They are the same old revolutionary ideas of men like Lenin, Marx and Alinsky in the past, and Chavez and Castro today.

But America is indeed a democratic society, which is only to say that the people must vote for Democratic Socialism. It can not be forced upon them. Socialism must be sold and purchased in America and so far, the sale is going just fine.

Our future is visible in our past. Study the past well and choose your future wisely...

NewsByUs: The American Pursuit of Democratic Socialism by JB Williams - Mar 1, 08

Are the majority of people in the USA buying and voting for socialism?
Has our Republic been poisoned enough to cause it to eventually die?

Mikeyy · #2 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.F.V.

Are the majority of people in the USA buying and voting for socialism?
Has our Republic been poisoned enough to cause it to eventually die?

You almost had me interested until I realized it was a right wing thread. It seems to me the right is the party willing to concede their rights to the governmentg in exchange for safety. And when the left challenges them they are attacked by the right. I think you had better think about your own Chicken hawks.

saltwn · #3 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 01:38 PM

We are a democratic Republic (on paper).
In reality we are a corporate write off.

Spencer Collins · #4 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.F.V.

Are the majority of people in the USA buying and voting for socialism? Has our Republic been poisoned enough to cause it to eventually die?

Well,who has been in power for the last 8 years? No..make that 12 years! Tax cuts for the rich,workfare..bridges to nowhere,influence pedeling.This does not sound like a trend towards socialism to me.Why anyone would vote for "change" is beyond me!..

V.F.V. · #5 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Well,who has been in power for the last 8 years? No..make that 12 years! Tax cuts for the rich,workfare..bridges to nowhere,influence pedeling.This does not sound like a trend towards socialism to me.Why anyone would vote for "change" is beyond me!..

Yes, but it appears that now there are enough people who want changes for changes sake without consideration of what the bad consequences will be when Hillary Rotten or Obama Hussein is elected the next president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy
You almost had me interested until I realized it was a right wing thread. It seems to me the right is the party willing to concede their rights to the governmentg in exchange for safety. And when the left challenges them they are attacked by the right. I think you had better think about your own Chicken hawks

Right wing is better than left wing. I haven't personally lost any rights, nor has the average American citizen. The same could be said in regards to when the right challenges the left. I think you had better think about your own Chicken hawks.

Spencer Collins · #6 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.F.V.

Yes, but it appears that now there are enough people who want changes for changes sake without consideration of what the bad consequences will be when Hillary Rotten or Obama Hussein are elected the next president.

Your comments are full of cheap shots,don't get me wrong..I'm far from being a liberal. That said..I think it's a little unfair to say that people only want change for the sake of change. I know people on both sides of the aisle that are tired of all the partisan bickering! I have some hardcore conservative friends that are very upset with the Bush administration. They claim he is not a true conservative.I also know some liberals who support the war,as incredible as this may sound,they are pro choice on the life issues but hawks when it comes to supporting the war.One of the beautiful yet dangerous things about a Democratic Republic is that we must trust in the common sense of the people.When we error,there is a process that we follow to correct the error...I'm not sure I would want it any other way.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself and our own pomposity and greed.A conservative friend of mine actually wants Hillary or Obama to win in 08. I asked him why?..he said it will set the Conservatives up for another 12 years. The problems that face the next administration will almost guarantee a single term. He wants two terms and believes the GOP would be smarter to let this election go but make it appear that they want to win. In essence,he is saying if the Democrats win they lose. He prefers to take the long view.

Mikeyy · #7 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.F.V.

Yes, but it appears that now there are enough people who want changes for changes sake without consideration of what the bad consequences will be when Hillary Rotten or Obama Hussein is elected the next president.

Right wing is better than left wing. I haven't personally lost any rights, nor has the average American citizen. The same could be said in regards to when the right challenges the left. I think you had better think about your own Chicken hawks.

Your funny so I'll play along. The administration went to the telecom companies 4 months after coming in to office to obtain your phone and internet records. Now because of the fact that you have the right to be secure in your papers. And because they realize that that was illegal they want to give the telecom companies a free pass for breaking the law. The reason they want congress to shield the telecoms from criminal responsibility is to protect their own fat asses from prosecution. The administration had no right to obtain your info without a warrant. In short. They broke the law and against the constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. I know this usually does mean much to the right because they apparently have no understanding of why the constitution and the Bill of rights were written.
The right thinks party trumps country. It is obvious given the lack of willingness to investigate anything from the mismanagement of the war. To billions of missing dollars in cash. From war profiteering to false intelligence. They have no interest because they fear it will shine a bad light on BUSHCO. No bid contracts. OK with the republicans. Why? Because they are republicans.
A couple of facts for you. Military pay goes up under the democrats. Bush said the last military pay increase wasn't needed. So somehow that makes the right more pro military.
And the right attacks actual heroes all the time. Max Clelland for example. Left 3 limbs on the battlefield. The right called him a coward. It goes on and on. And the attacks are usually led by Rush or Hannity or Cheney or Savage etc. Non of which ever risked their asses for anyone.

The right.

Geez don't get me going

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Your funny so I'll play along. The administration went to the telecom companies 4 months after coming in to office to obtain your phone and internet records. Now because of the fact that you have the right to be secure in your papers. And because they realize that that was illegal they want to give the telecom companies a free pass for breaking the law. The reason they want congress to shield the telecoms from criminal responsibility is to protect their own fat asses from prosecution. The administration had no right to obtain your info without a warrant. In short. They broke the law and against the constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. I know this usually does mean much to the right because they apparently have no understanding of why the constitution and the Bill of rights were written.
The right thinks party trumps country. It is obvious given the lack of willingness to investigate anything from the mismanagement of the war. To billions of missing dollars in cash. From war profiteering to false intelligence. They have no interest because they fear it will shine a bad light on BUSHCO. No bid contracts. OK with the republicans. Why? Because they are republicans.
A couple of facts for you. Military pay goes up under the democrats. Bush said the last military pay increase wasn't needed. So somehow that makes the right more pro military.
And the right attacks actual heroes all the time. Max Clelland for example. Left 3 limbs on the battlefield. The right called him a coward. It goes on and on. And the attacks are usually led by Rush or Hannity or Cheney or Savage etc. Non of which ever risked their asses for anyone.

The right.

Geez don't get me going

Your missing the who intention of the thread...

You're equating "socialism" with the disappearance of rights...

"Socialism" is the government taking care of you from cradle to grave...There is very little from this administration that comes close to that...

While as the Democratic candidates are PURE in that manner...

They explicitly want to penalize success...They are trying to nationalize healthcare...They will raise taxes...

"It Takes A Village"...

V.F.V. · #9 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Your comments are full of cheap shots,don't get me wrong..I'm far from being a liberal. That said..I think it's a little unfair to say that people only want change for the sake of change. I know people on both sides of the aisle that are tired of all the partisan bickering! I have some hardcore conservative friends that are very upset with the Bush administration. They claim he is not a true conservative.I also know some liberals who support the war,as incredible as this may sound,they are pro choice on the life issues but hawks when it comes to supporting the war.One of the beautiful yet dangerous things about a Democratic Republic is that we must trust in the common sense of the people.When we error,there is a process that we follow to correct the error...I'm not sure I would want it any other way.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself and our own pomposity and greed.A conservative friend of mine actually wants Hillary or Obama to win in 08. I asked him why?..he said it will set the Conservatives up for another 12 years. The problems that face the next administration will almost guarantee a single term. He wants two terms and believes the GOP would be smarter to let this election go but make it appear that they want to win. In essence,he is saying if the Democrats win they lose. He prefers to take the long view.

I don't agree that pointing out what Clinton or Obama are proposing they will do if elected are cheap shots. The democrat socialists sure want change for the sake of change. It would be good if there wasn't partisan bickering, but in reality partisan bickering has been happening since the founding of our nation and is not going to go away. I'm against Democrat socialism , so why your criticizing me for being so I don't know, by the fact that you have shows how there isn't much unity on the conservative/republican side which will contribute to helping Clinton or Obama to become the next president.
As for if Clinton or Obama being one term presidents, that is doubtful, considering the fact that Billy Clinton was reelected.

Mikeyy · #10 (**permalink**) 03-01-2008, 04:35 PM

Today’s Democrat Party is selling change again and they have exactly the same kinds of change in mind that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Alinsky had in mind.

This is interesting because these guys didn't even agree with each other. So how could they share the same beliefs as the Democratic party?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins