Congressmen Fail to Disclose "Democratic Socialists of America" Membership

[Mini-Me]

Come on, guys. I disagree with RedStripe on a lot of his views too, but he obviously has his heart in the right place, and importantly, he's a clear ally against both the status quo and the expansion of government power. If every leftist were like RedStripe, we would not be in the mess we're in today. He may have different views about how he'd ultimately like to see society structured socially and economically, but that's no reason to crap all over him. He's just coming from a different socioeconomic perspective than most people here.

We all want freedom, even if freedom means something a little different to all of us. That's why freedom's so great anyway: When we can agree not to impose government on each other, we don't have to stress so much over our differences. RedStripe isn't going to be voting for Lenin anytime soon (or Obama, for that matter), so what's the problem (other than his biting sarcasm)? Alienating guys like him and making enemies will do more harm than good. Build bridges, not walls.

Also, Meatwasp, most of the atheists here are just cynical 20-somethings, not infiltrators. I don't agree with them (nor am I religious), but I know enough atheists in real life to understand them. The Communists did try to destroy religion, since it was blasphemy to the religion of the state, but that's not why the atheists here believe as they do.

 

[silentshout]

I think he meant, "Tons of Democrats are socialists anyway. Who really cares if some of them just make it official with a card-carrying membership?"

Then again, I do see your point too: It's a worrying sign when some of the D's are able to make their socialism "official" without overwhelming backlash. To draw a parallel, we already know that the neocon R's are essentially gradualist fascists or Nazis, but it would be much more terrifying if they were able to get away with being official card-carrying Nazis without overwhelming backlash.

Yes, that is what I meant..well, kind of. I don't see how someone can hear that, for example, Kucinich is for 100% free higher education and not think he is pretty much socialistic? I don't agree with him (except on foreign policy and the drug war), but I don't find it shocking that he would consider himself a socialist.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The most annoying thing about these socialists is their adamant denial that they are socialists. From Obama to Pelosi to Maddow. Who do they think they are fooling?

 

[FrankRep]

The most annoying thing about these socialists is their adamant denial that they are socialists. From Obama to Pelosi to Maddow. Who do they think they are fooling?

Typical argument: We're not Socialists, we're Progressives.



A rose by any other name...

 

[Mini-Me]

Yes, that is what I meant..well, kind of. I don't see how someone can hear that, for example, Kucinich is for 100% free higher education and not think he is pretty much socialistic? I don't agree with him (except on foreign policy and the drug war), but I don't find it shocking that he would consider himself a socialist.

Yeah...Kucinich is a bit of an anomaly in politics, though. He considers himself a "small government socialist," and I think he actually believes there's a such thing. I suppose he means, "lots of redistribution with minimal bureaucracy," or something to that effect. Kucinich is wrong and short-sighted, and he doesn't understand that the ends of socialist ideals cannot follow from the means. However, he's honest about who he is, and I think he means well (road to hell and all that )

In contrast, most of the other socialist Democrats are just sociopathic narcissists doing the bidding of the political establishment for their own gain (same goes for the neocons). Most of these assholes couldn't care less that the banner of state socialism is and always has been a ploy to grab more centralized power for the benefit of the elite. Most don't admit they're socialists though (or "socialists," though the difference is inconsequential to the end result), given Fabian gradualism and sneakiness and all that. When more start admitting it though, that might be when you need to worry that we're nearing the endgame.

 

[silentshout]

Yeah...Kucinich is a bit of an anomaly in politics, though. He considers himself a "small government socialist," and I think he actually believes there's a such thing. I suppose he means, "lots of redistribution with minimal bureaucracy," or something to that effect. Kucinich is wrong and short-sighted, and he doesn't understand that the ends of socialist ideals cannot follow from the means. However, he's honest about who he is, and I think he means well (road to hell and all that )

In contrast, most of the other socialist Democrats are just sociopathic narcissists doing the bidding of the political establishment for their own gain (same goes for the neocons). Most of these assholes couldn't care less that the banner of state socialism is and always has been a ploy to grab more centralized power for the benefit of the elite. Most don't admit they're socialists though (or "socialists," though the difference is inconsequential to the end result), given Fabian gradualism and sneakiness and all that. When more start admitting it though, that might be when you need to worry that we're nearing the endgame.

Good points. I agree with you about Kucinich as well.

 

[Mini-Me]

Typical argument: We're not Socialists, we're Progressives.



A rose by any other name...

I cannot stand the "progressive" label. It's so smarmy and manipulative, and I feel like it was specifically chosen to ensnare young people. After all, every young idealist has an, "out with the old, in with the better new" mentality and a desire to rid the world of the stale injustices caused by their obstinate elders' narrow-mindedness. "Progressive" is such a feel-good, positive-sounding word...and it can be attached to just about anything that can be portrayed as "non-traditional." Lack of historical perspective tricks young, hip, "progressive" kids into thinking socialism and enormous government is something new and exciting...when really, big-government central planning [and tyranny] is as old as civilization itself, and the notion of limited government and free enterprise is comparatively in its infancy.

EDIT: God, I need to go to bed.

 

[Jack Bauer]

That's the thing that the lefty statists do best - co-opting labels.

When liberalism and being a liberal had a positive connotation (in this case liberal meaning classical liberal) they lefty socialist/ statists effectively co-opted that label. In today's politics, "liberalism" is almost the exact anti-thesis to the classical liberalism of the 19th century. In fact, so good were they at co-opting the label that the torch bearers of classical liberalism in recent times (Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlitt) are not considered "liberals" by a vast majority of the population.

And now that the right and the neocons have smeared the word "liberal" for a long period of time so that its lost the shine and has a negative connotation, they are co-opting the word "progressive". As if once they call themselves progressives, everything they do will be about progress. At least that's the subliminal message they want to send out to the dumb public.

Yeah man, we're progressives, 'cause when we take over, there will be like ummm like progress and stuff.

 

[Meatwasp]

The wars that the Republicans got us into that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives, is much more disturbing than some socialism conspiracy.

I know, the Dems don't want to give up licking food stamps. But the way things are going they better enjoy 'em while they last!

The wars the republicans got us into? You don't know history do you? Jfk got us into Vietnam, Roosevelt got us into WWW3 Both parties are at fault.

 

[YumYum]

The wars the republicans got us into? You don't know history do you? Jfk got us into Vietnam, Roosevelt got us into WWW3 Both parties are at fault.

I was talking about the current wars: Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Meatwasp]

I was talking about the current wars: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah sure.

 

[Meatwasp]

Commies? Is this the 1950s? Honestly, I just don't see why people are shocked.

Yes the Bolsheviks came into our country full hilt in the fifties and are still here eating the foundation of America.

 

[YumYum]

Yeah sure.

I was! Those are the wars that we are now dealing with. I don't give a rats about the wars in the past. How much do you want to bet that if the Pubgelicans take control of Congress this November they end up declaring war on Iran? Evidence shows that Obama is trying to avoid an Iranian conflict.

 

[osan]

May I take it the MSM isn't touching this with a 100 ft. pole?

 

[free1]

May I take it the MSM isn't touching this with a 100 ft. pole?

They will touch on it.

3 second mention, once, on Sunday morning at 3 AM, on a 3 day weekend. Just enough so they can say they reported it.

 

[pcosmar]

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

And some wonder why I seem angry.

 

[Meatwasp]

I was! Those are the wars that we are now dealing with. I don't give a rats about the wars in the past. How much do you want to bet that if the Pubgelicans take control of Congress this November they end up declaring war on Iran? Evidence shows that Obama is trying to avoid an Iranian conflict.

B.S.

 

[pcosmar]

You might also enjoy,,

YouTube - The Fabian Society & World Communitarianism

 

[Meatwasp]

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425.html



And some wonder why I seem angry.

Pcosmar, we are already there. I am angry too.

 

[YumYum]

B.S.

How'd you do on your logs? You want any more free advice?