The next presidential election: Are we about to become a Socialist country?

Seeing current conservatives dismiss liberals as socialists reminds me of how conservatives have nearly completed their morphing into fascists.

Sound silly? Indeed. From both sides.

This depends on the groups we are trying to define. Within each person there are may be views that do not jibe with the group with which he or she is identified. For instance, a person may be for national healthcare, but against gun control, or vice versa. With that in mind, I will attempt to list the issues with whether I see them as fascist or socialist. Keep in mind, I'm using strict interpretations of the definitions for both, as they relate to economics and culture. There will be some overlap. For example, gun control and eminent domain are both fascist and socialistic in nature.

Fascist
Anti-any race
Anti-homosexual
Pro-life
Pro-government censorship of the arts (doesn't include being against NEA, which is government FUNDING for the arts)
Pro-eminent domain
Pro-legislation for "hate crimes"
Pro-gun control
Anti-government criticism

Socialist
Pro-gun control
Pro-national healthcare
Pro-abortion (not to be confused with pro-choice)
Anti-religion
Pro-eminent domain
Pro-frivolous lawsuit
Pro-legislation for "hate crimes"
Pro-political correctness (thought police)
Anti-government criticism

The gist is that both neo-cons and neo-libs have one thing as their aim. To limit the freedoms of others.
 
Last edited:
The gist is that both neo-cons and neo-libs have one thing as their aim. To limit the freedoms of others.

Government has one aim - governing (to exercise continuous sovereign authority over) the masses. Governments seek control, pure and simple. That is why our founding fathers put together a document to limit the things that the government could do. They knew of, and talked incessantly about, the evil nature of government.

Every social program eats away at that document, providing the government more and more power. Each step taken in this direction is also a step toward the fall of our country. Our forefathers saw this threat and tried to protect us from ourselves. Unfortunately, we have become too blind to see what they saw. Only when faced with government tyranny will we, as a nation, demand change. And history shows that these demands will have to be accompanied by a willingness to take up arms against the government.

How many will die to kill the beast that we keep feeding while in denial?
 
I'm tired of politicians. I'd rather have a statesman, and I don't care what color his/her skin is.
A person's lifestyle or preference is that alone and nothing more. Government has no business in it.
I favor pro-life, but that doesn't mean prohibition of personal choice. If my wife or daughter were ever raped, I'd gladly pay for the cleansing. But late term (partial-birth) abortion isn't a personal choice -it's murder.
I don't want free health care, just affordable health care.
My religion is my business, and I'll thank them to keep their nose out of it.
My property belongs to me. If you try to take it, you will experience my idea of gun control. The only one who controls my gun is me.
Each person has their own ideas on what constitutes frivolity. What might be peanuts to one person may be riches to another. Never deny a man his day in court.
A crime is a crime, and justice is justice. A person's religion, race, creed or personal lifestyle should have no bearing on either.
Political correctness is ruining this nation, but too much government involvement into personal matters will do more harm to this nation than political correctness ever could.
 
I have worked for over 20 years paying SS and I really don't expect that it will be around by the time that I reach retirement.

I understand that baby boomers want to get back what they've paid in to SS for 40+ years. I want to ensure that I can provide for my family, allow them to prosper, and have a decent nest egg for when I retire also. My father's goals and my goals are going to come into conflict. Why?

After 1971, the total fertility rate (TFR) in the U.S. fell below the replacement fertility rate (RFR) of 2.1 births per woman. From 1972 to 1989 (ironically the main reproductive years of the baby boomers), the TFR never rose above 2.0. Therefore, the baby boomers became the first generation that didn't produce enough offspring to replace their own numbers.

The second factor is increasing life expectancy. The baby boomers can expect to live, on average, probably around 81 years. Their parents will have lived, on average, around 75 years. So, the baby boomers will receive about 5 more years, per recipient, of SS benefits than did their parents. The rising life expenctancy is mainly due to improvements in medical technology and health care. It is ironic that while incidences of cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes and other generally age-related diseases are rising, those stricken with them are living longer and more active lives due to those medical improvements.

It is estimated that the baby boomers have a much higher incidence of obesity, high-blood pressure and diabetes and a more sedentary lifestyle than did their parents. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they will have many more health problems in their late years than did their parents. This is why the attempts at more and more government subsidization of prescription medication and healthcare is another point of concern for the generations that follow the boomers. We will also have to pay for that. It is quite macabre to say that possibly the only hope for the post-boomers is if, as some forecast, the life expectancy actually decreases in the next few years.

The boomers, I believe, are the schizophrenic generation. They came into adulthood as the idealists, fighting for those less fortunate and carrying the entreaty of Kennedy ("Ask not what your country can do for you... ask what you can do for your country") like the vision of St. Francis of Assisi. They are going into retirement seeing just how much they can get out of the rest of us while they still have political power. So much for Kennedy's call against selfishness.

I told my father that it is a good thing that he raised me on a farm and taught me how to live from the land, because if the continued rate of taking from the younger to give to the older continues, that may be the only way that his grandchildren will be able to eat. It is very likely that the following generations will not live at the same standard of living that the baby boomers did, because in the last years of their lives, they will suck the life from those that came after. Either we will end up paying half of our salaries in taxes, or we will continue to increase the debt so that it eventually eats our children alive.
 
The European Socialists have invaded and taken over the Democratic Party of the US. They have no ideas of their own. Their main objectives are to wreak havoc in our economy and turn us into a complete welfare state. They also want to demoralize and destroy our military, and make it completely impossible to complete our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and force us to fail in our efforts there. Our military failures and the humiliation of the Republican Party is their objective. There will be nothing of positive substance initiated or completed by the Democrats in Congress. Their objective is to destroy. They have only their own political self-interests at heart and could care less about what is good for this country.
Many years ago, the Democratic Party stood for what was good and decent in this country, and fought for the best interests of it's citizens, businesses, military strength, education system, etc. But the Liberal Democrat of today is a completely different animal. I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Liberal Democrat of today is like a scorpion. It hates and attacks, and does so simply by it's own nature. It's just a scorpion, and that's what it does.

scorpions are actually quite docile. even if you were capable of conjuring an appropriate analogy, your premise is absurd. 'their objective is to destroy'? ok doke
 
May the good Lord save us from Hillary. She is a monster. She is a determined Socialist and, although naturally very unattractive, she just may be elected. The ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-fated war in Iraq give a candidate like Hillary a chance she would never have in any other election cycle. I voted for W twice, but he has been a terrible disappointment to me in his second term. Leaves the door open for a radical, socialist. Again, Lord have mercy.
 
May the good Lord save us from Hillary. She is a monster. She is a determined Socialist and, although naturally very unattractive, she just may be elected.
The scary part is she has made an effort to appear more moderate lately, and thus more appealing to voters who don't know any better.
 
Last edited:
The scary part is she has made an effort to appear more moderate lately, and thus more appealing to voters who don't know any better.

I don't...no, I cannot believe that this country will ever elect H-Rod, or Obama. Most of the people in this country have more sense than that. The Dems would be doing themselves a favor by electing another candidate in the primaries.

As for the Reps, Giuliani is the only one who halfway does what he says, so of course he'll never make it through the primaries.
 
I don't...no, I cannot believe that this country will ever elect H-Rod, or Obama. Most of the people in this country have more sense than that. The Dems would be doing themselves a favor by electing another candidate in the primaries.

As for the Reps, Giuliani is the only one who halfway does what he says, so of course he'll never make it through the primaries.

I hope you're right about Hilly and Obama and wrong about Rudy. I would hate to see McCain as the leading Republican candidate. But I have a feeling the Dems will get their candidates in pecking order, then encourage a lot of crossover voting in the primaries. If that happens, we could see Hilly and Bill in the White House again. But this time it'll be Hilly having private meetings with interns and Bill doing the interviews.....
 
I don't think Rudy could take the primary because he's a little left on a couple of Rep pet issues. He's the Republican answer to many of the Dems that won seats in November. He's a righty who sometimes bats lefty. It would play well in a general election, but it would hurt like the dickens with southern and midwestern republicans.
 
i'm not sure where you get this idea, they voted w president twice :p ;)
While I consider the Bush presidency to have been almost a complete failure (I only consider his terrorism policy and economic policy to be positives), Kerry was, and is, a complete waste of oxygen. I shudder to think where we would be today with him as president...
 
The scary part is she has made an effort to appear more moderate lately, and thus more appealing to voters who don't know any better.

Actually, that is Hill and Bill's MO...they come toward the center to attract votes at election time. Hillary actually made a statement a few years ago at the World Economic forum that nations who didn't follow the dictates of that body should be sanctioned. Hillary believes the world should function as a governmental whole...yes you heard that right...ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Those of you who are familiar with Biblical prophecy should shudder.
 

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads