It's not only in regards to Iraq that the Democrats are showing their true colors, after years of blaming economic issues on Bush and free trade, what do we get from the Democrate lead Congress...

"House approves Peru free trade pact"

Seems the Democrats say one thing to get support but do exactly the opposite when in postion to make changes.

Yep,

Democrats are a party consumed with hatred.

Hatred is the common thread and glue that holds Democrats (Liberals) and their diverse, single issue groups and "victims" together!

Seven years of pure hatred from and by Democrats!!!

AAR

Liberal Hollywood can't figure out why it's run of anti-America, anti-military films is doing so poorly. They say its because no-one wants to watch "Iraq" movies.

I wonder if they put out a pro-America, pro-military movie if that would be true?

Longer than that AAR. It started before Democrats lost Congress and never stopped. Now Democrats control Congress, but no ideas.

They know how to distribute pork.

They know how to stop "unsightly" windmill projects in their areas.

They know that they killed oil exploration and drilling but shortages aren't their fault.

They want people to be able to kill their babies.

They want out of Iraq, whatever that means and damn the consequences.

They want guys to be able to wear dresses to work, but not if their Republican because that would be icky.

They want to massively raise taxes.

They want socialism.

They think intercepting enemy communications is bad, but are OK with burning American women and children to death in Waco.

They want your guns, just in case you realize their insane.

[yawn]
good old joey short ride is as irrelevant as ever. once 2008 margins increase in both houses, he'll be summarily ejected from his committee chairs.

I would say the hate is pretty equal on both sides. Neither side wants to take responsibility for their mistakes, and both sides want to blame the other side for all the evils of the world.

There appears to be plenty of hatred on both sides and this post proves that. It is posts like this (a daily event on BFB) that continues t breed hatred from both sides. It would be refreshing to have Mark put up something that would start to bring the posters together. Surely we have some common ground, beliefs and goals as Americans instead of always finding fault with what the other party is doing. Lets face it, our elected officials are not representing the people of this country, but instead their own special interests, and it is not a one party problem. But, then it would be so much harder to spew the hatred one reads on this blog everyday.

This site should be named "I_Hate_All_Things_Liberal.com" or
"IHateDemocrats.com" or "I_Hate_all_people_who_hate_bush.com"

Yep, sure.

Where are the anti-liberal movies? When's the last time Republicans shot into, ransacked, or burned Democrat offices? When's the last time conservatives burned American soldiers in effigy?

Now, ask those questions about Democrats and liberals.

But, CLAIMING we hate to justify YOUR hate is a pretty damn week argument.

Kahn,
First, I've never said I hate Bush. In fact I've always been willing to give him credit when he does something I agree with. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean I hate him. Se
cond, if you want to see an example of right wing hate, go back and read your 11:13 post. Unless you have proof that every democrat in congress supports everyone one of your points, I would consider it a pretty good example of blind hate towards the democrats.

Seems like Joe isn't the only person wondering about the Democrat leadership..

Latest headline.
Dems question latest anti-war strategy

wow kahn - a quick search on 'the google' and.. LO AND BEHOLD:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/26/burglars-break-into-dodd_n_61888.html

from the constituency that worships the likes of fox news, melanie morgan, michael savage, and ann coulter, to lecture the left on hateful rhetoric is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

nice try though! i see the number of regular readers here has diminished to what, 15?

Unless you have proof that every democrat in congress supports everyone one of your points, I would consider it a pretty good example of blind hate towards the democrats.

Casper, you're such an enigma. The two sides of your brain must function completely independently of each other. Sometimes you engage in fairly rational discourse, and sometimes you just make totally irrational, nonsensical statements like the one above. ALL the things Kahn listed apply to Democrats, NOT Republicans, but he never said they apply to ALL Democrats. Yet somehow, according to you, unless he can prove that they apply to ALL Democrats, he is somehow guilty of "blind hate" toward Democrats? Could you please explain the logic (or lack thereof) behind that statement?

BTW, do you disagree with any of issues Kahn listed as applying to Democrats, particularly the Democratic Congressional leadership? If so, which ones and why?

sunny,
I agree, it would be nice to see a positive post. Don't know if it will ever happen though, people on both sides have too much invested in their hate.

It all comes down to one thing, and I defy anyone to debate this truth:

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what his exit strategy is.

Period.

Retired Spook,
All of Kahn's statements were generalizations. I don't know anyone who believes in even a majority of those points.
For example:
"They want socialism." Which democrats have said they want socialism? I doubt it's more than one or two if any.

"They know how to stop "unsightly" windmill projects in their areas." How many democrats in congress have stopped windmill projects? How many republicans?

"They think intercepting enemy communications is bad, but are OK with burning American women and children to death in Waco."
Who has come out against intercepting enemy communications. It's listening to everyday American commuications that most are against. Name a serving democrat who has stated they are OK with burning American women and children to death in Waco.

I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift.

Kahn I am not sure what aeras of expertise you claim, but accountings is probably not one of them. Could you please post your list of "box office losers" ? Thanks
"Hollywood" does not finance movies, Wall Streeet does.
Also it is always most interesting to see what slurs and insults people choose to use on others it often reveals more about themselves then others.

But, CLAIMING we hate to justify YOUR hate is a pretty damn week argument.

Posted by: Kahn at November 9, 2007 02:19 PM

attaboy, Kahn. You didn't disappoint with your expected response.

Hatred? Or anger?

Anger at what this Administration has done to the Constitution, to centuries old notions of habeas corpus, at spying on its citizens, at waging a war that is counter-productive, at the secrecy.

I think Americans have every right to be angry right now. And the Democrats have been complicit. Maybe this explains why there is growing support for someone like Ron Paul. I don't know.

But Casper, those are party planks aren't they? And as to Waco, you see how many liberals YOU can get to condemn it.

conscriptor, "Homeless man and career criminal burglarizes career politician and gets arrested.

The sad thing about this incident is that the perpetrator did not even know that he was breaking into the office of a presidential candidate."

Real Republican mischief.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He went over to the dark side of the neocons long ago. Democrats got rid of him in the Connecticut primary. The Republicans thirst for war provided helped to provide them with their only election victory in 06 when they dumped on their own Republican candidate and drug this piece of crap back into the Senate

Casper,

Google: "hate bush" or "hate george bush" or "hate president bush" and similar searches -- both with and without the quotes! In addition to the Web, Google groups and blogs as well.

Consider too that the number is far greater than that shown since Google doesn't index all of the pages and links on each site!

AAR

Kahn,
"But Casper, those are party planks aren't they?"
Show me where socialism or stopping windmills are party planks.

"And as to Waco, you see how many liberals YOU can get to condemn it."

I'm against running over puppies on purpose, but I don't spend all my time condemning it. Just because someone doesn't condemn something, it doesn't mean they are for it.

AAR,
I never said there aren't people who hate Bush. My point is there is just as much hate coming from the right towards Clinton, Kerry, Reid, etc.

I just wish Joe would stop drinking the Kool-Aid and join the party. Heck, he's more conservative than Chafee, Jeffords, Snowe, and Specter.

"Anger at what this Administration has done to the Constitution,"

Please Tantraman, tell us what constitutional rights you've lost.
Also, please name more than one person (cause I alrady know which is the only person) that has had his/her constitutional rights violated since GW took office.

Please Tantraman, tell us what constitutional rights you've lost.
Also, please name more than one person (cause I alrady know which is the only person) that has had his/her constitutional rights violated since GW took office.

Posted by: navydad at November 9, 2007 05:05 PM

And navydad, tell me how a gay couple has impacted your marriage; or how your right to worship/pray as you please has been taken from you.

Hollywood is casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films

This will soon read:

Democrats are casualty of war as voters shun pessimistic party platform.

I would say the hate is pretty equal on both sides.

I would say that you're full of crap. Compare the GOP and the Donkaroaches in Washington, Casper. There's no doubt who's displaying the hate.

And sunny, this blog is not a lovefest--it's a GOP blog! Get your own blog if you want "common ground," you ditz...

"And navydad, tell me how a gay couple has impacted your marriage; or how your right to worship/pray as you please has been taken from you"

Neither have been affected Sunny. What's your point? Tantraman is effectively saying that Americans have lost civil liberties and it couldn't be further from the truth. His are purely loony left talking points to scare the uninformed...period.

My wife's sister is gay, and I practice my religion unimpeded by our government.

OT, but just saw Silky Pony on Fox News, slamming his opponents for their "inside the beltway" tactics and taking money from special interests.

One must ask: are trial lawyers a special-interest group? This guy is second-tier, and should fade away after Slick Hillie trounces him in the primaries...

Could you please post your list of "box office losers" ?

In the Valley of Elah $6,704,576

Rendition $9,283,593

The two latest I am sure I could have found many many more had I wanted to but both of these movies come off as Anti-War Anti-US and they have been out for well over a month. With the cast they had in both they didnt even make enough money to pay the actors so both were a big loss and will drop prolly before they ever make 10 million.

Oh one more that just made enough to pay the main actors salary for the movie was
The Kingdom $46,844,125

How must Hollywierd feel when they make kid movies they go big, when they make a movie they assume Americans will flock to cause they are anti-whatever they fail.

As far as Joe if I were him I would throw the ideas over board of the party that threw him overboard. They run an anti-war candidate against him and he still won. So apparently his constituencies were not as anti-war as the Democrat's thought.

What's the Breck Girl doing on Fox?

I can't remember ever seeing his mug on that network. He's either movin to the center or keefy Dolbermann turned him down.

AAR,

Your right Google doesn't index your searches. It places them based on who offered the most cents per click.

Google changed 2-3 years ago, when they decided to stop being a free search engine and realized people would pay to have there links displayed first.

On the loss of constitutional rights..........

YES! we must stop the armed and armored jack-booted thugs from raiding innocent U.S. citizens in the dark of night. Searching a home with an invalid "warrent" and spiriting those subjects away at the point of a fully automatic weapon!!!

We must stop these people before it happens again!!! The family members of Elian Gonzales must be so traumatized.........

wait, THAT WASN'T GEORGE BUSH?????

Wait, we can't raid the homes of suspected terrorists, who are not US citizens because of what the suspects might do if the evidence suggests they may cause harm. But we can raid the homes of US citizens based on the "suspicion" of what they might do, even though they have pledged to cooperate and have cooperated with authorities?!?

Liberals defend the actions of the latter but abhor the former.

Oh, it is all so clearly now. How many people have Bush and his AG have killed with the authorizations of the Patriot Act (which the neocoms are so afraid of) VS. How many people Clinton and Reno killed without the Patriot Act?

Isn't politics wonderful.

Well Casper - I see EVEN YOU WON'T CONDEMN WACO!

As to the windmills, well yes, I was poking fun. It's not an "official" policy. But with all the high powered liberals on Cape Cod banding together and the way Ted Kennedy got a bill passed that made it very hard to do a windmill project anywhere in the country I think it must be an "unofficial" plank. Try getting a liberal to condemn that either.

During the last election cycle Republicans were shot at multiple times. Our vehicles were damaged by the early 20's kids of Democrat officials, offices were firebombed, and the AFL-CIO stormed offices and trashed them. Bite me.

Oh, and raising taxes like crazy to supply a socialist safety net is, well its socialism. Isn't it?

Kahn, I hope you never get treatment for your paranoia. It is entirely too humorous to watch.

(PS: I'm coming to take your guns away!)

Kahn,
I see you won't condemn RUNNING OVER PUPPIES. While I Think Waco was a terrible tragedy that "could have been prevented if either side would have backed down, I would put the bulk of the
blame on the Feds, because all they had to do was "wait and sooner or later they could have won without the violence. Now how do you feel about RUNNING OVER PUPPIES.

During the last election cycle Republicans were shot at multiple times. Our vehicles were damaged by the early 20's kids of Democrat officials, offices were firebombed, and the AFL-CIO stormed offices and trashed them."

And if I go to the Daily Kos, I'm sure I can find links to voters being kept from the polls through intimidation. I've heard the stories from both sides.

"Oh, and raising taxes like crazy to supply a socialist safety net is, well its socialism. Isn't it?"
First, I haven't seen a plank wanting to raise taxes like crazy. However, if we are going to debate this, perhaps you should first tell me how you define socialism.

Neocon4life!!!
"I would say that you're full of crap."
Could be, I've been a little stopped up lately.

Compare the GOP and the Donkaroaches in Washington, Casper. There's no doubt who's displaying the hate."

I have compared the two sides, and I just don't see that much difference.

Beep! Beep!

Fox News Alert!

This just in...

It is now confirmed.

Hillary Clinton is cheating in the debates.

She has planted a question, so she could answer it!

Anything for Power!

Beep, beep--Over and out!

Jeremiah

Casper, thanks - look around and note that no liberal posters joined in your condemnation.

Maybe KOS 6thinks that asking for a drivers license is more intimidating than bullets whistling by your head? Worse than having your office burned? As bad as a union group of thugs attacking you at the campaign headquarters?

I bow to Democrats clearly superior knowledge about how to actually intimidate people. Sounds like they may have taken some of those night classes the mafia was offering. Oh wait... unions, mafia? Hmmmmm

Casper, I guess you have to add up all the existing wealth redistribution programs with all the proposed programs to see it.

Lets see, how to explain taxes. This is from the 2005 Presidents Advisory Panel on Tax Reform

At 2004 income levels, cash income quintiles were--
1- Bottom 0 - $11,884
2- Second $11,884 - $25,558
3- Third $25,558 - $45,083
4- Fourth $45,083 - $78,589
5- Highest $78,589 +

Quint 1 pay 0.4% of the taxes
Quint 2 pay 2.4% of the taxes
Quint 3 pay 8.5% of the taxes
Quint 4 pay 18.5% of the taxes
Quint 5 pay 70.2% of the taxes

It also turns out the top 10% of the people pay just over 50% of the taxes. So, when Democrats sign onto to Rangels tax bill, a bill where he says he'll decrease the lowest tax rates and increase the highest... well think about it. The lowest 50% of the population pays no taxes at all. Even when they do, the rates are very low. How is he going to cut that more? And, well you could eliminate it all together and it wouldn't be that much money.

An increase at the "highest" levels means taxing the 10% who pay 50% of the burden now. Clearly - clearly this is wealth redistribution. If that isn't socialism, what is?

OK, now - you want to talk about the 1st and 2nd Amendments?

Casper,

Democrats have given plenty indication that they want to enact major tax hikes on the American people, 12 or 13 bills, Thankfully all of which will get vetoed, well, maybe one won't.

Sheeesh, Democrats act like America is the reason for the attacks on 9/11. How can they stand themselves with such hatred??

Now, how would I define Socialism--

Well, to me, Socialism would mean that the government has complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away. Which isn't good at all.

They would also have complete control over how much food and other necessities I can buy and so forth.

All around, it means the government has bigger, fatter pocket books and bellies in the end. Leaving the general ppl without!!

To easier understand it--Democrats want to raise the amount of taxes paid to obscene amounts and then redistribute it to others, of the "poor", to every child born goes $5,000.00, on and on. All to buy votes, and get control, Power by force!!!

I have compared the two sides, and I just don't see that much difference.

Go to Daily Kos or any of the numerous Libeal sites and you will clearly see, the name calling and character assasination is just left unattended to f-you, f-him and f-them, on and on.

To more perfectly illustrate this, many Liberal sites will not allow an opposing opinion on their site. In effect, you get banned indefinitely. The extreme-hate is just out of control on the Left.

Jeremiah

Kahn,
So your definition of socialism is wealth redistribution?
So if the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer, is that an example of reverse socialism, or is it just plain socialism?

I thought socialism was; An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all.

If you don't like my definition, I would love to hear yours. However, at this point I don't see the democrats pushing for government taking control of all private property.

Jeremiah,
"To more perfectly illustrate this, many Liberal sites will not allow an opposing opinion on their site. In effect, you get banned indefinitely."
There are also many right wing sites that will ban you it you have an opposing viewpoint. The difference is?

"Well, to me, Socialism would mean that the government has complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away. Which isn't good at all."

So who is pushing for this? Please give me names and links to their quotes.

There are also many right wing sites that will ban you it you have an opposing viewpoint. The difference is?

The difference being--those of the Liberal sites who ban Christian Conservatives are intolerant of the views that are beneficial to society, and pose no harm whatsoever. They are banning people who care about the problems of America, and that know the solution to our problems.

In the case of Conservatives, Conservative bloggers ban the Liberals for their profane and vulgar language, and all around evil propaganda.

Easy--Conservatives ban bad talk.
Liberals ban good talk.

See?

Now, to better help you understand why Conservatives ban evil talkers--God commands that we not accept or tolerate blasphemous talk in our midst, we must rebuke them!!

Leviticus 22:32--

'Do not profane My Holy name, I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the Lord, who makes you Holy.'

So who is pushing for this? Please give me names and links to their quotes.

There are too many to list--Just look to all your Democrat Congressmen,Senators, Representatives, (Hillary in particular) not to mention all your Liberal Governors, City Mayors, Council ppl, Judges, and all the many people (voters) who hold the same philosophy.

Jeremiah

Quick note: In order that people may not get confused, I need to restate the following Q&A:

"Well, to me, Socialism would mean that the government has complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away. Which isn't good at all."

So who is pushing for this? Please give me names and links to their quotes.

There are too many to list--Just look to all your Democrat Congressmen,Senators, Representatives, (Hillary in particular) not to mention all your Liberal Governors, City Mayors, Council ppl, Judges, and all the many people (voters) who hold the same philosophy.

There now, all better!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,
"There are too many to list--Just look to all your Democrat Congressmen,Senators, Representatives, (Hillary in particular) not to mention all your Liberal Governors, City Mayors, Council ppl, Judges, and all the many people (voters) who hold the same philosophy."

Ok, find me one quote from any of the people you listed where the person advocates the government having complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away. It should be easy.

"There are too many to list--Just look to all your Democrat Congressmen,Senators, Representatives, (Hillary in particular) not to mention all your Liberal Governors, City Mayors, Council ppl, Judges, and all the many people (voters) who hold the same philosophy."

If there are so many, it should be easy to find at least one or two quotes. Find me a quote from a democrat who wants the government to have complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away.

Sorry for the double post.

If there are so many, it should be easy to find at least one or two quotes. Find me a quote from a democrat who wants the government to have complete control over how much money I can make, and how much of my earnings they can take away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Ok instead of quoting on I just give you the link .... Hitlery herself.

Casper, what middle class? Look at those numbers. You tell me where middle class begins and where it ends? Quintile 4 starts at $45K a year. Quintile 5 at $78.5K a year. Is $78K middle cless, upper middle class or what?

You are using the same rich get richer language they use. So, is your mind made up already or what? Do you even understand your own position.

There are 300 million people in the US. The ultra rich make up a tiny percentage. People that make $150K or more are classified as rich by Rangel.

Is $150K a year middle, upper middle, or rich class to you?

When the Republican House chose to Impeach Clinton his approval rate was at about 68%. Clinton is still the most widely liked President.

Kahn,
Actually, I was just trying to find out what your definition of socialism is?

Mark Kookman says: "Really, that is all there is - no rationality, no convincing alternative policy...just a hatred of a party in general"

You think that's what's going on? People who have no rationality? Wow. Do you realise your just psychologically projecting yourself and conservatives onto the rational people of this world? Just non rational hatred we have? No, the people like that are you and conservatives. NO, you say, tell me all about the idea about how liberalism sprang from fascism, as you have said before. Any rational sources I can go to for that little tidbit of your "rational" ideas?

No Little Mark, you are the hating non-rational mad man if there ever was one.

He's just psychologically projecting everyone. Like all these tiny mad conservatives seem to do with complete unawarness. Or maybe it's a trick like the crazies use in the book 1984.

kahn,
Actually, the original point I was trying to make is this. Both left and right make statements about the other that, IMO, are not true and can't be proven, in an effort to make the other side look bad.
For example: A major left wing talking point seems to be that The Republicans are trying to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. In reality, has anyone ever produced a quote from any republican advocating that position.
The right does the same thing with socialism. You claim democrats want to turn the U.S. into a socialist country, but nobody can produce any quotes from democrats advocating that.

Socialism is akin to communism. They sit at different places on the spectrum of ownership and responsibility. Taking money from everyone, especially the "rich" and setting up a nanny state that tries to take care of everyones needs from cradle to grave is socialism. This includes housing, food, education, health care.

Now some might argue that food, housing health care and even education are your own concern. That you should be able to provide these things for yourself.

Public education was the first thing on the list to become a government function. Now, you can't even get the money earmarked for your child and go someplace else because the bureaucracy thinks that money is theirs. And that is one of the problems with socialism.

Eventually, the government or the apparatus of these services can come to think that their existence is more important the the services they deliver. The way teachers unions have grown to control the education apparatus is evidence of this. The other problem is dependence and lack of self liberty.

When most of the Republican minority joined with the northerners part of the Democrat majority to pass the civil rights laws in the 50's and 60's, the Democratic party lost the ability to control the black vote in the south through intimidation. LBJ, in quite frankly a brilliant stroke of cynical genius created a vast dependence upon welfare within the black community. When Republicans took, or take issue with the destructive nature of this relationship we are branded as racist.

The result of this targeted "socialism" has been the destruction of the black family and an ethnic group that has retreated or remained stagnant economically since the 1960's. The "inner city", which is code for "blacks" that bought into this welfare state idea have seen their neighborhoods steadily deteriorate. Notably, blacks who refused this LBJ payoff have done all right. Still though, the blacks as a group bristle at the "heartless" Republicans when we suggest that maybe this socialism is the problem and not the cure.

I notice Casper failed to look at the youtube video of Hillary saying she was going to take profits of companys and put them in fund for the government.

But then again when posted with FACTS of one of them actually saying a socialist comment they ignore it and continue to rant about how the other side is doing it. Typical

"I notice Casper failed to look at the youtube video of Hillary saying she was going to take profits of companys and put them in fund for the government."

I think we already do that. It's called taxes. We've been doing it for years.

Do you have a link of Hilary or any other Democrat saying they want socialism?

Michael,
If you read my posts, you will see that I'm pointing out that both sides slander the other. I think it's wrong.

"But then again when posted with FACTS of one of them actually saying a socialist comment they ignore it and continue to rant about how the other side is doing it."

Exactly what is a socialist comment. Could you provide a definition please.

I think we already do that. It's called taxes. We've been doing it for years.

I am afraid you misunderstood Hillary here she wasnt talking about taxing those profits she was talking about taking the excess and putting it in a special fund. Not in the national cofers that are taxes. This is a scary thing. For her to talk about taking profits regardless of who made them and using them for the government is a fine line between socialism and communism. Who cares if the oil companies made 8 billion in profits they earned them that is the American way. 9 cents a gallon in profit is small for doing all the work but the government makes 43 cents a gallon for doing nothing, and she still wants more. So you tell me how that isn't a socialist idea.

Definition of Socailism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Wealth Redistribution in short government control of all aspects of your life like health care.

You know for you to ask for a direct qoute of someone saying I am for socialism you know your never going to find it, but I offer this. As the liberals like to say about the conservatives actions speak louder than words. Even if I don't say I am for it, if all my actions put me in a position then one could surmise that I am for it.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Michael,
First, I am not a Hilary fan. I truly hope that she is either beaten in the primaries or is forced to drop out. She is way too divisive.
That said, she's about as much of a socialist as I am a pro football player. Where is she advocating taking over industries and having everything owned and controlled by the government?
You see a socialist because that's what you want to see. It's no different than liberals who claim Bush wants to establish a theocracy based on his actions. Neither is true.

BTW, Wealth Redistribution is not Socailism. Name a country that has never taxed their people in one form or another.

OK Casper I will concede you are not a Pro Football player I will on the other hand not concede Hillary is a Socialist.

Name me one country that isn't socialist that has government run Health Care?

This is a socialist idea and always has been. To be honest I don't want to have to pull my teeth with pliers at home and use superglue to reattach one that has chipped. Do a search on google you will find it. When I think of Hillary I am reminded a quote from long ago..... I come as a thief in the night.....This is what she is trying to do and if we sit by in a stupor this is exactly what will happen.

BTW Casper I compliment you on one thing no personal attack I like that.

I /bow to you in humble regard

"Wealth Redistribution is not Socailism. Name a country that has never taxed their people in one form or another."

Casper, taxation and redistribution of wealth or not necessarily related. Taxes can be used exclusively to provide for the commone defense, as our forefathers put it. The concept of redistribution of wealth is a twentieth century invention, borne from communism, from those according to their means to those according to their needs.

Your original definition of socialism is actually communism, where the the are no private property rights, and the state controls all. 20th century socialism recognizes private property rights, but reserves the right of the state to confiscate (tax) wealth and redistribute it to those they deem in need. Its the concept of 'leveling the playing field'. This is a primary tenet of the democrats. They are interested in equality of outcome, not just equal opportunity.

Universal healthcare is a prime example of socialism. Name a dem leader that isn't in favor of it.

Didn't think you could.

Michael,
As I said, I hope Hillary does not become president. One final point though, If Hillary is a socialist, why are so many corporations giving her money?

"BTW Casper I compliment you on one thing no personal attack I like that."

I don't do personal attacks. I have yet to see anyone bring about anything positive by calling someone else names. I would like to compliment you for giving me the same respect.

USA,

If you can find me saying that liberalism arose from fascism then the most surprised person would be myself...what I do say is that fascism is the illegitimate child of liberalism (as is socialism, communism and Nazism). The furthest right, it should be borne in mind, is monarchy; conservative being developed in response to liberalism and coming as a defense of the old order.

phnx,
Just out of curiosity where did you get your definition of socialism. I got mine from one of the dictionary sites and it didn't mention communism. The reason I ask is because we can't really debate something if we can't agree on definitions to began with. It's like Clinton asking what the definition of is is.