It is time to retire the term "liberal"

[Magneto]

The Democrat party has consistently shown themselves not to be liberal or progressive despite what they party leaders have said over the last 40 years. I say lets call them what they are, and use the term "socialist", and we should use it a lot. They use any label they can to slander anything remotely conservative, usually involving lies and falsehoods. We would only be telling the truth about them, which is more than they can say.

 

[NYFelon]

been saying this for years.

 

[Kick]

Agreed.

 

[SixSigmaLarry]

The Democrat party has consistently shown themselves not to be liberal or progressive despite what they party leaders have said over the last 40 years. I say lets call them what they are, and use the term "socialist", and we should use it a lot. They use any label they can to slander anything remotely conservative, usually involving lies and falsehoods. We would only be telling the truth about them, which is more than they can say.

Very true. When you consider their commitment to expand big government even more into lives and take away our freedoms it is scary.

So, maybe we should call our liberal media something else too or just what it seems to be....state controlled media. Always pushing the stories that do not matter to shield the mistakes the man in the White House is making and those that the other democrats make.

 

[Xenokilla]

You can say the same for the other side, how much did the gov't grow under bush? how many times did they raise the debt ceiling under him? (hint, its 7). That's not very conservative. Not to mention all the moral and ethical scandals.

 

[gunowner930]

Another agreement. Modern Democrats are not liberals. The only individual rights they believe in are abortion and sometimes recreational marijuana use. They're behind almost all of the ridiculous bans around the country. They support a lack of liberty, yet they are still called "liberals." How interesting.

 

[edsinger]

I call em something else but I cant say here...

 

[Rampdog]

Todays Democrat party is as far as one can get from the classical definition of liberalism. I like that democrats have taken to referring to themselves as "Progressives." Socialists have always called themselves "Progressives" and referred to their ideals as "progressive." So we know that the Democrats are at least being honest in that regard. I would go as far as saying that the Democrats are by far the most honest party. They let us know all the time what they plan on doing. It isn't hidden, only couched in rhetoric meant to mollify us. Look at Obamas speeches on the runup to the election. He told us exactely what he planned on doing if he was elected to the presidency.

 

[SSGSAD]

I call em something else but I cant say here...

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

 

[garlic_b]

The two parties in the US are right of center, and way way far right of center.

 

[NYFelon]

The two parties in the US are right of center, and way way far right of center.

 

[Stschil]

The two parties are interchangable. D or R, it doesn't matter. They only care about absolute power. Which as we all know, corrupts absolutely.

I won't give up hope, though. History proves that they will fail and fall. They have become to big to sustain themselves and their constant desperation in action will only unveil them.

There will be great troubles ahead for those who are unprepared and for those who have not accepted defeat. The diffence will be the prepared will be poised to rebuild.

 

[superjoe76]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas, American socialist

 

[pudly]

You can say the same for the other side, how much did the gov't grow under bush? how many times did they raise the debt ceiling under him? (hint, its 7). That's not very conservative.

Bush was a Republican, but not particularly conservative. I found a far better correlation when checking raises in the debt limit vs. parties controlling Congress, since Congress is the branch that actually controls spending.

Republican: 3 times in 8 years, 13% of increases, $1.7 trillion
Democrat: 8 times in 12 years, 60% of increases, $7.9 trillion
Mixed control: 8 times in 10 years, 27% of increase, $3.6 trillion

Edit: All in all, 19 raises in 30 years is nothing for the government to brag about. That is why all the gnashing of teeth when Republicans are trying to avoid raising it yet again.

 

[Hotdoger]

Bush was a Republican, but not particularly conservative. I found a far better correlation when checking raises in the debt limit vs. parties controlling Congress, since Congress is the branch that actually controls spending.

Republican: 3 times in 8 years, 13% of increases, $1.7 trillion
Democrat: 8 times in 12 years, 60% of increases, $7.9 trillion
Mixed control: 8 times in 10 years, 27% of increase, $3.6 trillion

That does not fit the socialist narrative that everthing is Bush's fault.

 

[pudly]

That does not fit the socialist narrative that everthing is Bush's fault.

Or the narrative by some on INGO that the Rs and Ds are the same.

 

[jmiller676]

Progressive Socialists...socialism is a small step in the grand scheme of things.

 

[88E30M50]

There are aspects of both parties that are identical. Both of them hold re-election as the supreme goal. The [STRIKE]democrats [/STRIKE] socialists use the wages of the productive to buy the votes of the non-productive. The Republicans take a more indirect route of collecting money from special interests and using it to convince the people that they are the better choice. Neither party is working for us.

The big difference is that the [STRIKE]democrats [/STRIKE] socialists believe in a world where nobody needs to be responsible for their own well-being. The government takes from the productive and provides for anyone that chooses to not work. In a [STRIKE]democratic[/STRIKE] socialist world, everything is provided by the government, including protection and safety. It's an immature mindset that continues the childhood dependency on parents into an adulthood dependency on the government.

The Republicans? They are pretty screwed up too, but more in an every-man-for-himself way. Given my choice, I'll go with the dog eat dog world of Republicans until we can right the ship and return to being a Representative Republic.

 

[jmiller676]

There are aspects of both parties that are identical. Both of them hold re-election as the supreme goal. The [STRIKE]democrats [/STRIKE] socialists use the wages of the productive to buy the votes of the non-productive. The Republicans take a more indirect route of collecting money from special interests and using it to convince the people that they are the better choice. Neither party is working for us.

The big difference is that the [STRIKE]democrats [/STRIKE] socialists believe in a world where nobody needs to be responsible for their own well-being. The government takes from the productive and provides for anyone that chooses to not work. In a [STRIKE]democratic[/STRIKE] socialist world, everything is provided by the government, including protection and safety. It's an immature mindset that continues the childhood dependency on parents into an adulthood dependency on the government.

The Republicans? They are pretty screwed up too, but more in an every-man-for-himself way. Given my choice, I'll go with the dog eat dog world of Republicans until we can right the ship and return to being a Representative Republic.

 

[rambone]

Or the narrative by some on INGO that the Rs and Ds are the same.

It doesn't fit the narrative that the Republican Party will turn this country around either. Or that they are fiscally conservative as a group.

So George Bush & the Republicans "only" raised the debt ceiling 3 times... ... their fiscal hypocrisy is matched only by their efforts to destroy our civil liberties and wage war.