"Democrat-Socialist Party" Will the name stick?

[amicus]

Fluttering around the News channels today is the Republican National Committees' effort to change the name of the Democrat Party, to Democrat-Socialist.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2009/05/06/rnc-members-want-dems-to-fess-up-to-their-socialist-ideals/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479935,00.html

http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/...od-idea-to-attack-the-man-with-the-microphone

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021724.php

Acquiring stock in the major Banks and Auto companies, is in effect, Nationalizing those industries, which is an aspect of State Ownership of the means of production, a socialist plank.

Is the Democrat party aptly described as democrat-socialist?

Amicus

 

[DesertPirate]

More honest than any member of that party.

 

[JericBuckley]

It's yet another PR stunt by the Republican party to make Obama and the Democratic party look bad.

Look, I try not to get caught up in the game of politics (as kidnapping and loving are more of my chief exploits, but I also like to stay informed), but this obfuscation of 'socialism' is a sign of the lack of the Republican Party's willingness to work together with the Democrats. They have not come up with any better alternatives whatsoever, instead choosing to snipe at the Democrats from the sidelines. They are just throwing rocks and making faces because they have become the lame duck parties in both houses, and they are in pretty bad shape because of their willingness to stick to a philosophy that people do not like and do not benefit from. If they do not change their message, throw out the Limbaugh-esque philosophy permeating the discourse in their conversations, and find a philosophy that doesn't benefit solely the rich, the Republican Party will simply go the way of the Whig Party.

They are not popular and they are completely oblivious to it. The Republican Party is like the alcoholic who keeps on drinking. It needs an intervention fast or the DTs are going to keep on coming, and they will eventually destroy themselves.

 

[JamesSD]

No, it will not stick. Not that being a socialist is necessarily bad, but it's simply inaccurate.

I have a couple acquaintances who are socialists. They view Obama as a fascist right-winger.

I'd remind you that the Bush administration was the one that started all the bailouts and buyouts, but I know it would fall on deaf ears.

 

[amicus]

Welp, good golly ms molly, I for one, find even the mention of socialism revolting, the very concepts involved in the system offend me and, watching the recent Tea Party demonstrations, many, many more.

It does not fall on deaf ears that most former administrations have taken a left turn in policy and many Americans, nearly half, disagree.

I fully realize that I am, for the most part, addressing an entire generation educated to hate America and all that it stands for in both domestic and foreign policies.

When it becomes unpopular and controversial to even defend those basic American principles, free market, free men, as it has on this forum, something is amiss and it troubles me and should trouble everyone.

By definition, the Democrat Party has been Socialist since FDR assaulted the Constitution and tried to pack the Supreme Court.

Why call it by any other name than what it is? Half, at least on this forum, applaud European Social Democracies, a polite term for Democrat-socialists.

Amicus

 

[JericBuckley]

It does not fall on deaf ears that most former administrations have taken a left turn in policy and many Americans, nearly half, disagree.

I fully realize that I am, for the most part, addressing an entire generation educated to hate America and all that it stands for in both domestic and foreign policies.

When it becomes unpopular and controversial to even defend those basic American principles, free market, free men, as it has on this forum, something is amiss and it troubles me and should trouble everyone.

LISTEN

TO

YOURSELF

 

[amicus]

Hello, Jeric, welcome to the forum and your initial cryptic comment, which, to you, I suppose has meaning.

I actually do listen to myself, through headphones that gave, 'presence', to forty years of radio talk show broadcasting.

I doubt that is what you meant.

amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

In a few months DEMOCRAT will be synonym for socialist. They wont require a name change unless they wanna change the name of the party to get rid of the stigma.

The Democrats remind me of a certain ethnic group that needs a new name about every generation, because who they are remains the same.

 

[JackLuis]

Welp, good golly ms molly,

When it becomes unpopular and controversial to even defend those basic American principles, free market, free men, as it has on this forum, something is amiss and it troubles me and should trouble everyone.

Amicus

Amicus, it is still a free country and people have a right to disagree with you. I know you agree 'cuse your so agreeable to freedom.

What I don't understand is what has Obama done that was socialistic? If you are going to say, "Well, he took over the Car Industry," I think he was kind of forced to, considering the options he had. And the Financial bail out! Shit that was Bushe's doing to start.

Have I missed something? Did Obama start lineing up the Skinheads in LA and shoot them? Did he "dismiss Congress for the currant Emergancy?"

Calling Democrats Social-Democrats is a typically stupid Roveisim. The Republicans brought this on themselves by selling out to the Dark Lords. The "principles" of the Republican Party put a lot of emphasis on Capitialisim but very little on the Rule of Law. Consider the ENRON convictions and times served, fines paid.

Perhaps the Republicans should change thier name to...


The Tight Ass Zelotry Party

the TAZP

 

[Huckleman2000]

umm... no.

 

[amicus]

I don't expect the name change to Democrat-Socialist to take hold, but I do expect a re-alignment of both major Parties.

American's for the most part still paint Socialism with a broad brush as something they want no part of, regardless of the policies which can clearly be defined as socialistic in nature.

Republicans on the other hand, have a real decision facing them, of staying Moderate in politics or renewing the vigor of basic Americanism, free market, small government policies or going into a free fall downward for the next few elections.

I suggest that July 4th and phase two of the Tea Party demonstrators may give a clue as to the future of American values in the coming years.

Amicus

 

[DesertPirate]

And yet so many here deny that the Govt. taking an ownership position in Banks and GM is socialism.

 

[amicus]

For that very reason, DP, they do not wish to identify themselves as Socialist because that term, like Atheist, is naturally pejorative to most.

I heard the British MEP Daniel Hannan, interviewed on Hannity this afternoon, another marvelous outburst against British Socialism. I searched Fox News and YouTube, hoping to find a link to it but came up with naught.

Did you by chance see it, or anyone? Sure would appreciate a link, it was a powerful statement once again.

Amicus

 

[esales]

It's yet another PR stunt by the Republican party to make Obama and the Democratic party look bad.

Look, I try not to get caught up in the game of politics (as kidnapping and loving are more of my chief exploits, but I also like to stay informed), but this obfuscation of 'socialism' is a sign of the lack of the Republican Party's willingness to work together with the Democrats. They have not come up with any better alternatives whatsoever, instead choosing to snipe at the Democrats from the sidelines. They are just throwing rocks and making faces because they have become the lame duck parties in both houses, and they are in pretty bad shape because of their willingness to stick to a philosophy that people do not like and do not benefit from. If they do not change their message, throw out the Limbaugh-esque philosophy permeating the discourse in their conversations, and find a philosophy that doesn't benefit solely the rich, the Republican Party will simply go the way of the Whig Party.

They are not popular and they are completely oblivious to it. The Republican Party is like the alcoholic who keeps on drinking. It needs an intervention fast or the DTs are going to keep on coming, and they will eventually destroy themselves.

The republicans have sent tons of ideas to the floor, but not a single one has been allowed to be seen because of the democrats who control congress. At least for now.

 

[DesertPirate]

The republicans have sent tons of ideas to the floor, but not a single one has been allowed to be seen because of the democrats who control congress. At least for now.

Only a year and a half to go!

 

[DesertPirate]

For that very reason, DP, they do not wish to identify themselves as Socialist because that term, like Atheist, is naturally pejorative to most.

I heard the British MEP Daniel Hannan, interviewed on Hannity this afternoon, another marvelous outburst against British Socialism. I searched Fox News and YouTube, hoping to find a link to it but came up with naught.

Did you by chance see it, or anyone? Sure would appreciate a link, it was a powerful statement once again.

Amicus

I saw it and it was a well said piece.
No links that I can find either

 

[amicus]

Thanks, DP, I will look again later this evening, perhaps it will be posted then.

regards...

ami

 

[Liar]

And yet so many here deny that the Govt. taking an ownership position in Banks and GM is socialism.

Socialism is not the government owning means, it's the government controlling means, by political decree.

The government is an entity with a pile of money obtained legally. If they decide to buy stock with that pile of money, it's not socialism. It's capitalism. And majority stockholders get to decide stuff.

You might not agree with the government that that is what they should do with the money. Or that it's morally right that the money is theirs. But that doesn't make it socialism.

Semantic nitpicking, I know. But kind of important nitpicking. If you're going to use the S-word as a scarecrow, use it right.

They didn't grab ownership. As far as I know, they bought it. Like everybody else.

 

[amicus]

Since we are engaged in semantic nitpicking, perhaps besides majority ownership by the government and the exercise of the power to hire and fire and dictate wages, salaries and bonuses and by rules and regulations, dictate the product and service of said Bank or Auto Company, that rather fulfills the socialist requirement of owning the means of production, does it not?

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Since we are engaged in semantic nitpicking, perhaps besides majority ownership by the government and the exercise of the power to hire and fire and dictate wages, salaries and bonuses and by rules and regulations, dictate the product and service of said Bank or Auto Company, that rather fulfills the socialist requirement of owning the means of production, does it not?

Amicus

Nope.

The government is a market player. It can, as every other market player use ownership in companies to affect what the companies do.

If the government does this without first legally buying themselves into the companies, it's more in the lines of socialism. If they obtain ownership by force. If they simply decide that they are allowed to buy shares for half the price... stuff like that.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen too. Increased regulation is for instance a more socialistic idea than decreased regulation. (Good or bad, nessecary ot not, is another issue. I'd say it's a nessecary evil.) And there are other things that the US government are trying to do at the moment that are leaning towards socialism, like increasing the society service level, with public health care, those rails and other stuff.

But just buying a company that is up for grabs on the free market, and doing so at market value, is not in itself a socialist move.

 

[amicus]

Liar, not that you have read, or would appreciate, "Atlas Shrugged", but government actions to take over the Wyatt Oil Company and Rearden Steel, in that fictional novel published fifty years ago were couched in almost the same terms you and the current administration are using.

I find her foresight somewhat amazing; that the path to socialism is so predictable. We have but ourselves to blame, if blame is to be assessed, for surely we were warned, long in advance.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Oh, and for the question in the thread title:

"Democrat-Socialist Party" Will the name stick?

Among a bunch of fringe yahoos maybe. Anyone else will see it for what it is. A petty political stunt.

I'm not even sure what they mean by it. Do they actually try to refer to "social democrats" but forgot what they were called?

 

[Liar]

Liar, not that you have read, or would appreciate, "Atlas Shrugged"

The gentleman assumeth too much. I have read Atlas Shrugged. It's lousy as a novel (Entertainment wise. Lady should have stuck to essays, a format in which she's readable. Not everone is a competent storyteller.) but interresting enough as a politic ideology premise.

 

[amicus]

Okay, so you have read it. I didn't want to quote you and repeat your literary criticism of the novel, it is the usual line of critics of her work.

I had half expected you to have read it and been familiar with the parts I mentioned and perhaps also, the explanation of the 20th Century Motor Company and their experiment with socialistic policies that failed and why they failed...and perhaps that you might have a comment on that.

Why is everyone up so late tonight, or in the case of MadMax from Suisse, so early?

Time for me to bow out for the evening....a good one to all...

amicus

 

[Boota]

I see nothing wrong with accepting whatever "socialist" policies can be used to help. Adopting working policies, regardless of their political ideology, just makes sense. As far as government control, this is an emergency situation. In emergencies of another kind the government is able to declare martial law, so exerting a little influence in this debacle doesn't seem outlandish. Standing quietly by and letting the same fools who crashed the ship continue to steer does seem outlandish. The current economic disaster shows what deregulation really brings. These corporations have proven that they cannot be left to their own devices.