Posted on 08/02/2007 5:32:19 AM PDT by sr4402
Is it me, or why do the Democrats see so obseessed with giving the democrarcy in Iraq to Al Queda, the President of Iraq or Syria?
Why are democrats so opposed to the will of the people when their name exposes democracy - the will of the people.
Whoops, I really wish we had spell check for first postings!
The Dems’ determination to raise questions about the legitimacy of elections has undermined the spread of democracy world-wide. No wonder the Russians and the Chinese have such contempt for democratic institutions. No wonder Hugo Chavez has a green light from his own people to appoint himself dictator of a previously democratic nation.
They’re = Their
Democrats are the ultimate paper tiger. They talk tough, remember what they said immediately after 911, but their true nature always comes through because above everything else they loath the military and the conception of the America we love. They are totally consumed by snobbery and arrogance as is found in Europe.
In 3 words:
THEY HATE FREEDOM.
The Democraticans are a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros and an oligarchy of other hugely wealthy “benefactors”. It has been a long time since the party has been anything like “democratic”, in that the decisions within the party are agreed to by consensus of the majority. Now, the “ideals” are dictated by a small clique at the top, and the word is spread partly through ward heelers, but increasingly much more through “town hall” communications sent out over the mainstream media and via online blogs dedicated to the purpose, using the “talking points” memos.
Interfering in any way with these lines of communication (like sending in “missionaries” with Republican credentials to the various urban wards) is met with violence and some pretty nasty retaliation, like slashed tires and office break-ins. Trying to get a foothold in the “mainstream media” results in an informal embargo, like Democratican political candidates refusing to appear on Fox “fair and balanced” TV programming. And cries go up for a renewal of the “fairness doctrine”, dictating the limits and conditions under which various viewpoints may be presented on the “public” airways. In a similar manner, there is a demand for “regulation” of the use of bandwidth on the Internet.
One man, one vote, one way, one time. Then forever locked into that decision, never to be rescinded. No matter how conditions may change.
Yes, I do believe they hate the freedoms inherent in our Republican Democracy.
For the same reason they have twisted the word “liberal” from its original, honorable meaning — to claim they are something they are not.
(Note to those who may be historically deficient — a liberal from the 18th century holds many of the same positions as a conservative today, and an 18th-century conservative would feel comfortable in the Democrat Party today. Also, the Republican Party was formed around a radical agenda — abolition of slavery, and promotion of individual liberties. They were called liberals in the 19th century.)
Look at how they rule the city states hey control Chicago is a one party hereditary monarchy. Their’s is a patronage system, not a democracy or meritocracy, as they claim. Socialists took over the traditional Democrat party. As Pat Cadell put it during the 2000 election recount. “My god, the party of my grandfather has been taken over by gangters.”
Look at the way Democrats ‘game’ elections & the election machinery here in the US. They view close elections as there to be stolen. With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that free & fair elections are topic of such cynicism with Democrats?
Great description and post.
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.