Posted on 09/25/2005 10:56:29 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
Sullivan is correct.
If you want to read a good piece on Marx, check out The Worldly Philosophers. Probably the best book written on the lives and thinking and works of the economists. The author is far to the left, but the book is brilliant.
Neato, thanks! I always try to expand my personal map of the world whenever I can!
Sorry Andrew, you're still inconsequential.
I think you meant to say the government takes money to make money.
Well, considering that equality of means, fairness as determined by the state, central planning, democracy and collectivism are actually things valued by the Democrats over and above individual freedom and property rights, I think it not unfair to refer to them as socialists.
You are correct perhaps in stating that they are not socialists strictly according to the exact meaning of the word, since they are not actually (yet) calling for state control of the means of production, nor are they using the above terms. Nevertheless I do not mind seeing them referred to as socialists since at a fundamental level, their mindset is the same.
I won't argue with you if you wish to refer to them instead as leftists, and reserve the socialist tag for the few really true ones like Hillary and Pelosi. But the rest are still pushing us leftwards as hard as ever they can, in other words, toward socialism, whether they see themselves as such or no. They are all operating in the traditons from which socialism is derived.
Probably "communist" is not strictly accurate, except maybe for Hillary, but the Democrats are still closer to communism than they are to American traditions of freedom, so I for one think they deserve it when they get called commies.
I know an elderly couple who managed to escape many years ago from Rumania, which was still behind the Iron Curtain. They have had no trouble referring to Democrats as socialists, refusing to vote for them since, as they said, they already knew what it was like to live in a socialist country. The gentleman a few months ago, on hearing support from me for Bush, looked at me and said, "You like Bush? He is just a socialist too." An interesting perspective from one who had first hand experience.
Regarding this notion that Congress, not the president, controls spending:
First of all, others have already pointed out that the president has veto power, and that your comment is simply an attack on Republicans in Congress. But in addition, you're ignoring how the real world works, distinct from the theoretical, academic world where one learns everything about government from the constitution.
In the real world, Bush has priorities and pushes Congress to enact them. He can bend members of Congress to his will because he can, say, refuse to campaign for them. Or he can refuse to fund projects in their districts. Or he can do any number of other things to exert influence. True, a president is not a dictator; he can't do anything he wants. Congress feels influence from many sources, not just the White House. But the White House sure is a big one. And in the case of President Bush, he very strongly pushed (or even initiated) a number of big spending bills, pressuring legislators who didn't want to go along.
"This has always been the prize of the Republican effort, control of the Supreme Court."
???
What does the Supreme Court have to do with lowering taxes?
The Supreme Court being controlled by Liberals has done quite a bit of harm.
It was the Republican Congress that kept Clinton's spending in line. Now they just want to get reelected and are essentially buying votes. Bush is just not standing in their way.
"Supreme Court controlled by liberals? Don't understand.What harm do you mean?"
*snort*
Wow.
Guess you don't recall some of the moronic decisions made by the court.
Considering you're trying the tack of "I don't know what you are talking about", it would be best then if you'd retract your statement found in post 64.
"This has always been the prize of the Republican effort, control of the Supreme Court."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491052/posts?page=64#64
Funny, by your post 64, you admit that Libs are in control.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Wickard v. Filburn is one example among far too many to enumerate here.
I'll have to agree with many of Sullivan's points here. Bush and the GOP congress are spending money like drunken sailors.
Response: In all probability he is not a socialist. He is in fact a politician, in America, in 2005 A.D. That means he thinks no further than getting elected and keeping his popularity reasonably high. Possibly he has enough foresight to think of his cohorts future in government and certainly of his personal future economic security.
I agree with you. 'Leftist' is a very appropos word for many dems, though that's not to say they are strictly socialists or communists.
That being said, there are many democrats who aren't all that liberal nor all that leftist at all. My mayor in Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman, is a democrat but he has a bad attitude: the business of LV is his business, and he won't let sympathy for homless folks, for example, get in the way. He is a good guy and will get my vote when he is up for election again.
As a general principle though, your points stand. Very well said!
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.