Originally posted by Lord FollenTo be fair, democrats are liberals, not socialists, and they're very different. I do however like Kucinich and Gravel, I also like Obama.
i really like how im the only one thats voted for gravel thus far... kinda sad really seeing as he and kucinich are the only people i can count as "real democrats"
only in a perfect world will the media and money not rule the way politics run...socialism all the way!
Originally posted by lord xyzDemocrats are not liberals by any definition but the one that is similar to socialism, which, in fact, was just made up by them to sound less horrible.
To be fair, democrats are liberals, not socialists, and they're very different. I do however like Kucinich and Gravel, I also like Obama.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why? because I don't specialise in American politics
You don't have to specialize in American politics to know the basic differences between American parties. And it might be wise for you to know the difference between American parties before you can act like you know as much as an american political scientist (I'm referring to your "knowledge" about Hillary and Obama)
Originally posted by lord xyz
or American history?
Who mentioned that?
Originally posted by Bardock42It's not because of Democrats that American Democrats consider the word "tainted" but because of Republicans.
Is anyone else noticing how Democrats now (after tainting the word liberal), try to define themselves as progressives more and more.
Progressive is a more accurate term anyway.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Is anyone else noticing how Democrats now (after tainting the word liberal), try to define themselves as progressives more and more.
I was unaware that Democrats tainted the word on their own. Much like the tainting of conservative, wasn't tainted soley by the Republicans. No one wants to be described as that little area between nut sack and ass crack.
Originally posted by StrangeloveWell, that is true. Collective effort of tainting the name of the ideology I adhere to, by Democrats and Republicans.
It's not because of Democrats that American Democrats consider the word "tainted" but because of Republicans.Progressive is a more accurate term anyway.
Well, progressivism is really just an euphemism for socialism. Which is what Democrats are.
Originally posted by lord xyzthe comment i made of socialism was in reference to my preference to run the world by... it was not my definition of democrats THOUGH i do think they need to change their views like Gravel, in some views i call him a socialist.
To be fair, democrats are liberals, not socialists, and they're very different. I do however like Kucinich and Gravel, I also like Obama.
Originally posted by Bardock42the front runners in my opinion are furthest away from beinf progressive in my opinion.
Is anyone else noticing how Democrats now (after tainting the word liberal), try to define themselves as progressives more and more.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that is true. Collective effort of tainting the name of the ideology I adhere to, by Democrats and Republicans.Well, progressivism is really just an euphemism for [B]socialism
. Which is what Democrats are. [/B]
It's obvious a Democrat will probably be the next President. It just baffles me people want so much big government and more social programs. I suppose it's either that or perpetual war with McCain. So pick your poison eh?
Originally posted by BigRed
Exactly.It's obvious a Democrat will probably be the next President. It just baffles me people want so much big government and more social programs. I suppose it's either that or perpetual war with McCain. So pick your poison eh?
Yeah, but I'm not so worried about McCain. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him, but his views on the war will be checked by a democratic Congress so he can't mess up too badly.
I'm taking it nobody is going to dispute we might have a republican Congress, right?
Originally posted by Quark_666
Yeah, but I'm not so worried about McCain. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him, but his views on the war will be checked by a democratic Congress so he can't mess up too badly.I'm taking it nobody is going to dispute we might have a republican Congress, right?
Originally posted by BigRed
That hasn't stopped Bush since Democrats took over Congress in 2006 from still doing whatever he wants.
Bush didn't need to worry about a second term.
But on second thought, I understand that you can't excuse a presidential candidate's strange idea just because he might be worried about his second term...especially if that strange idea is half his campaign.
Perhaps I spoke too soon when I dismissed McCain's war ideas. But I do suspect the 111th Congress will be more likely to use its ability to control the extent of the war.