The correct term for them is marxist. I've heard Horowitz refer to them as neo-communists, but that doesn't really capture their essence, and neither does socialist. The problem here is today's marxists don't even have a cogent plan for their particular implementation of marxism....just some vague agenda for destroying the United States and democracy in the world in the interests of "social justice". However, just like all of the previous children of marxist thought......national socialism (nazism), socialism and communism, progressives and liberals are really all about genocide. What they want. What they support. What they ALWAYS support, is nothing less than the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people. That really is all that marxism is about, when you pair it down to its essence. It is the one repeating pattern that ties all of these people (including all liberals) and their behavior together. It's their goal. And it is a good reason to seriously consider rounding up and jailing the lot of them.
2006-06-27 17:35:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Basically it started with Nixon. As Vice-President, he trained Cubans in Florda to man the invasion of Cuba. They were trained like CIA Agents I understand. When the Bay of Pigs thing fell apart, this same Cubans were left without a mission. So, our Intellegence Agencies assigned the Cubans to a little unnamed dirty work.
It turns out that the trained Cuban Americans were first assignment to spread the word that Liberals were actually socialists. Well that worked up to point, because one of the Cuban CIA guys had a friend whose father was a self-discribed Liberal and a major Democratic Representative in Congress. And in a sort of drunk evening together at the Representitives house the Cuban got a little too drunk and joked about the Communist Liberals.
Well, the Congressman did not take it well and ordered the Cuban out of his house, and Cuban yelled back over his shoulder as he left something about CIA training. Well that really got the old mans goat. And, he yelled at the Cuba running away, " If Democrats are Communists, than Republicans are Fascist."
Those Cubans disappeared until 1963 for a minute. And, because of Vietnam War's outcome it seems, the idea that Democrats are Socialists has not been mentioned in public for fear that the arguement and results would be counter productive. But, It could be that this lesson needs to be taught twice, or I should say , learned.
2006-06-27 18:15:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by zclifton2 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Liberals and socialists do not always go hand in hand. Liberal means seeking change, a new methodology. Socialism is an economic system in which the Government controls some aspects (like healthcare) and private corporations and businesses control others.For that matter.... why are liberals not called Communists, where the government would control all aspects of distribution of goods and services?
2006-06-27 17:36:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by natasha b 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism has a myriad of ills that are well known to the public, so advocates of that ideology decided that it would be better to be called "liberals" instead of "socialists". Today most people know that the two are no different so the socialists aka liberals now want to call themselves "progressives". Clearly they are ashamed of the results for socialism or liberalism and need to hide under a new label while promoting the sleazy ideology that they know does not work. Liberalism is the most unprincipled position one can take given the horrible results to humanity.
2015-12-28 07:37:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not all liberals are socialist; for example I know many homosexuals all for gay marriage, very liberally minded in that realm but fiscally quite conservative. They are anti tax, pro business and capitalism all the way. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative - hardly a socialist.
2006-06-27 17:30:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by netjr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
About 8 years after this question was posted, NOW they're being called socialists lol
2014-08-21 00:14:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by TJ 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Calling them a socialist would be an honor that a democrat does not deserve.
2006-06-27 17:30:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can call me a socialist, but it went out of style a while back.
2006-06-27 17:30:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Beckee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
... that's like asking why are conservatives not called fascists...
the answer:
because there is a difference between the two... of course it seems that some have a hard time telling the difference
of course people like Pancacea make me wonder? But I don't think conservatives would support this...
Panacea: weren't you the one that just advocated killing anyone that didn't agree with you? And liberals are the ones that want genocide?
"jail anyone who complains, either in our own country or in Iran." I'm sorry, you said jail... that's different...maybe you could make camps for them... like concentration camps?
How can you say that liberals want one thing, when your basically demanding the same your self... hahaha
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArkjyukEhidWsbxw4U.PURXsy6IX?qid=20060627212451AAYfH3s
2006-06-27 17:35:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because we are not all socialists.
2006-06-27 17:30:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋