Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When the term "Socialism" becomes so devoid of meaning, so soft and watered-down that England, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan are all "socialist" in the conservatarian mind, I think it's fair to say, butchering Nixon, that we are all socialists now.
Yes the Democrat party has been infiltrated by Socialist and Communist..
enjoy your slavery to them, they have started with ObamaCare...
explain that to your grandchildren
Uh-huh. They've started towards slavery with a healthcare reform plan with a basic structure recommended by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, a mandate was recommended by Heritage, and a program almost identical to the program implemented by the current Republican candidate for President.
Just stop while you're behind.
ummmhmmm, I had a choice in that matter...Not to move to Massachusetts..
so please stop while you're behind
Are modern Democrats Just Socialists by Another Name?
Upton Sinclair: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
Socialists in Congress: LINK
American Socialist Voter
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
More Socialists
Elena Kagans Socialist College Thesis Dedicated to her Radical Brother HERE
Obamas' Former Car Czars' Socialist Publications HERE AND HERE
Hillary Clintons' College thesison Saul Alinsky HERE
Obamas' Communication Directer Praising Mao HERE
Obamas' Communist Green Czar Van Jones HERE
Other Radicals in the White House HERE AND HERE
More on the Congressional Progressive Caucus HERE.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O00vEv8QXLU]Maxine Waters Admits She's a Socialist - YouTube[/ame]
Obama Supreme Court justice Quoting Socialist Norman Thomas
Appointees by Barack Obama who were Members of the Democratic Socialists of America
Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.
David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations.
Rosa Brooks Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.
Carol Browner Energy Czar/Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign
Samantha Power National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.
Hilda Solis Secretary of Labor.
DSA Members who worked/works on Obamas Election Campaign
Harry Boyte Co-chairof the Civic Engagement Group of Barack Obamas U.S. presidential campaign.
Eliseo Medina Served on Obama's Latino Advisory Council.
Cornel West Served on Obama's National Black Advisory Council.
Jose LaLuz also served as president of Latinos for Obama.
More on Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America HERE
.
When the term "Socialism" becomes so devoid of meaning, so soft and watered-down that England, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan are all "socialist" in the conservatarian mind, I think it's fair to say, butchering Nixon, that we are all socialists now.
Whenever conservatives ask for examples of socialism that worked, these countries are produced as examples. So which is it, turds, does socialism work, or is every example of success the result of butchering terminology?
Uh-huh. They've started towards slavery with a healthcare reform plan with a basic structure recommended by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, a mandate was recommended by Heritage, and a program almost identical to the program implemented by the current Republican candidate for President.
Just stop while you're behind.
ummmhmmm, I had a choice in that matter...Not to move to Massachusetts..
so please stop while you're behind
You still have a choice in that matter - move to Somalia where the government stays out of your business.
Wow, I noticed that you are defending socialism. Its almost that youre lamenting that people are just too stupid to accept the idea of socialism. And sure, socialism is a form of dictatorial governance, where individual liberty takes second place to forced equality. Where no matter how hard you work or how skilled you become, youre just the same as the next Joe over (See why unions denounce merit in favor of seniority). There is a reason why most socialist and communist countries are run by hard line dictators....
Accomplished nothing for America? Private Property rights, individual liberty, and the idea that if you succeed, the success is your own, and if you fail, the failure is your own, is the driving force on what makes America Great. We put individual liberty before equality and we have a great deal of both. In all countries where equality has been placed before liberty they received neither. Whereas we have the unalienable, indisputable, irrefutable, self-evident right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, and not the guarantee of happiness. The value of my life is not how much I can contribute to society, but how much I can contribute to myself via hard work. No one owes you a dime for squirting out babies that you cant afford and no one owes you a living. Thats what makes America Great!
You remind me of the pampered children I know who have never worked a hard day in their life but somehow have made it on their own. The last time republicans ran America under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover we had the great depression, do you think that was some sort of accident? And please no revisionist history, if you blame democrats then be honest enough to look at your own. Reagan / Bush = bailouts, economic failure, Clinton / Bush = great recession. Unless you are rip van winkle you must have noticed the party in charge during these crashes.
As for liberty and success they mean nothing outside of context. You write and sound like an ad on TV. Cliches that are separate from the reality of the lives many Americans lead today. To repeat republicans after Lincoln did nothing for all of America, I do give credit to Eisenhower for the Keynesian highway project, and Reagan for supporting one of FDR's greatest accomplishment social security. All you need is freedom is meaningless blather, it is still the pudding that matters.
"We're always saying that children are our nations most valuable resource. Unfortunately, we dont behave as if we believe it. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children living in poverty in America increased by 41 percent, and now includes nearly one-quarter of our kids. Growing up in poverty is bad. It leads to lower graduation rates (a third of these children will not graduate from high school); lower incomes (nearly half will still be living in poverty at age 35); and lower life expectancy (by about eight years)." Ezekiel J. Emanuel Share the Wealth - NYTimes.com
"The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today." Welfare increases poverty
"As John Paul II has already observed, the demarcation line between rich and poor countries is no longer as clear as it was at the time of Populorum Progressio. The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of superdevelopment of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation. The scandal of glaring inequalities continues. Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries, both old and new, as well as in poor ones. Among those who sometimes fail to respect the human rights of workers are large multinational companies as well as local producers. International aid has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions both within the chain of donors and within that of the beneficiaries. Similarly, in the context of immaterial or cultural causes of development and underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility reproduced. On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development."
"Caritas in veritate" - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara
Progs are Compulsive Liars Lumping together Harding Coolidge and Hoover is a lie, but what can you do, tell the truth that Harding and Coolidge worked us out of a worse Depression than FDR inherited in record time?
You move to Greece where the government takes care of you cradle-to-grave.Uh-huh. They've started towards slavery with a healthcare reform plan with a basic structure recommended by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, a mandate was recommended by Heritage, and a program almost identical to the program implemented by the current Republican candidate for President.
Just stop while you're behind.
ummmhmmm, I had a choice in that matter...Not to move to Massachusetts..
so please stop while you're behind
You still have a choice in that matter - move to Somalia where the government stays out of your business.
That's a flat lie, Frank, period.
You cannot support it with the data at all.
But, tell you what: give it a try.
And, oh? Your opinion is not evidence.
Progs are Compulsive Liars Lumping together Harding Coolidge and Hoover is a lie, but what can you do, tell the truth that Harding and Coolidge worked us out of a worse Depression than FDR inherited in record time?
Do people really understand what a socialist and socialism really are? I guess not.
I think if some people met a real socialist they would piss in their pants.
=================================
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
=======================================
Can anyone say that they actually see any of what is within the definition by the Dems/progressives? It seems some people like riding the misinformation-scare-tactic- train even though they have no idea where the train is going.
No more than modern republicans are fascists by another name to refer to democrats as socialists or republicans as fascists is equally idiotic.Are Modern Democrats Just Socialists by Another Name?
Indeed, with regard to democrats, its particularly moronic to refer to them as socialists given the fact democrats participate in, and are advocates of, free markets and capitalism.
The OP poster assumes that calling someone a socialist has some specific meaning and that meaning is known. The problem with this lack of thinking is that socialism as used by wingnuts on the right has no meaning. It is associated in their limited minds with totalitarian, dictatorships, and communism, the wingnut does not understand these conceptual political philosophies either but that does not matter. Rational thought is missing from the minds of right wing ideologues. The level of their thinking is the school yard moron who can only name call and thinks in the name calling they have done something.
Now consider what socialism is and then consider today it is part and parcel of all modern societies. Government owns and operated numerous entities in America, ironically the people on the right who name call work in this very socialist community. The postal service, the roads, bridges, food inspection, health concerns and testing, internet creation, social security, airport regulation, even sports' stadium creation are all socialistic endeavors and all exist in America. Medicare and the military are socialistic.
Wingnuts live in a bubble that creates a narrow minded view of life and it is why in power they are such failures. In power they fail. In power they have never accomplished a single thing that was good for all America. But out of power, money bring them back to life and they whine and cry like children.
Do people really understand what a socialist and socialism really are? I guess not.
I think if some people met a real socialist they would piss in their pants.
=================================
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
=======================================
Can anyone say that they actually see any of what is within the definition by the Dems/progressives? It seems some people like riding the misinformation-scare-tactic- train even though they have no idea where the train is going.
Do people really understand what a socialist and socialism really are? I guess not.
I think if some people met a real socialist they would piss in their pants.
=================================
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
=======================================
Can anyone say that they actually see any of what is within the definition by the Dems/progressives? It seems some people like riding the misinformation-scare-tactic- train even though they have no idea where the train is going.
Three definitions that are pretty much all over the board there. If you use the first two, then the government already is socialist in many ways. Primary and secondary education is largely socialized with the government owning and operating public schools. The post office is owned and operated by the government. Most road and bridge construction is owned and operated by the government. The government operating Medicare and Social Security are socialist in nature as well.
We've seen the takeover of GM, of which the government now owns much of. That's a socialist move. But some things that some would call "socialist" aren't really, by that definition. Taxing the rich and middle class to provide food stamps to the poor doesn't entail the government owning and operating the means of providing food to the poor, just the paying for them to be able to get their own food. Passing laws and policy that basically force coal power plants out of business in favor of wind or solar energy isn't socialism unless the government owns and operates the wind and solar power. So really, passing laws and policies that would do such a thing is more just rigging the game: crony capitalism.
But that's not to say that many democrats don't favor socialism. Maybe they do. Maybe they'd rather see all hospitals owned and operated by the government or maybe they just believe that everyone deserves the same outcomes regardless of their input.
Socialism is a system whereby the means of production are owned cooperatively by the people and/or the government. Regulating privately owned means of production is not a socialism. It's common sense.Do people really understand what a socialist and socialism really are? I guess not.
I think if some people met a real socialist they would piss in their pants.
=================================
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
=======================================
Can anyone say that they actually see any of what is within the definition by the Dems/progressives? It seems some people like riding the misinformation-scare-tactic- train even though they have no idea where the train is going.
Three definitions that are pretty much all over the board there. If you use the first two, then the government already is socialist in many ways. Primary and secondary education is largely socialized with the government owning and operating public schools. The post office is owned and operated by the government. Most road and bridge construction is owned and operated by the government. The government operating Medicare and Social Security are socialist in nature as well.
We've seen the takeover of GM, of which the government now owns much of. That's a socialist move. But some things that some would call "socialist" aren't really, by that definition. Taxing the rich and middle class to provide food stamps to the poor doesn't entail the government owning and operating the means of providing food to the poor, just the paying for them to be able to get their own food. Passing laws and policy that basically force coal power plants out of business in favor of wind or solar energy isn't socialism unless the government owns and operates the wind and solar power. So really, passing laws and policies that would do such a thing is more just rigging the game: crony capitalism.
But that's not to say that many democrats don't favor socialism. Maybe they do. Maybe they'd rather see all hospitals owned and operated by the government or maybe they just believe that everyone deserves the same outcomes regardless of their input.
To expand on this. You have two extremes of the spectrum when it comes to business. On the capitalist side, you have business operating completely free and clear of any laws, regulations, etc. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with regard to providing their good or service of course. On the other side (socialism), you have complete and total government control: business being owned and operated by the government.
Somewhere in the middle, which is what we have, it's business operating under government law and regulation. Business that provides food must adhere to certain regulations regarding food quality, etc. So, let's look at banks after the whole bail-out thing. The reason things got out of control, according to the left, is that banks were operating too independently, and therefore, the solution is more government regulation. More regulation, more laws = more government control, therefore more toward the pure socialist side. Obviously not owned and operated strictly by the government, but by definition, a regulation that a business must abide by is a form of government operation of that business.
If, economically speaking, democrats are pretty consistently on the side of more regulation (thus more government operation of business) isn't it fair to at least suspect that perhaps some democrats favor socialism?
