Please give specific examples on why Liberals are being referred to as "communist" and "socialist"?

Question

Please refrain from replying with answers such as these:
"because they are"
"look at Hilary"
"if you don't know then you are blind"
Thanks!

uh oh...I have a stalker. Jeremy is following me. Should I put my profile on private now?

rukidding, can you please tell me what you are talking about? I have never changed my screen name. I always had "who cares"

B.Kevorkian-Why don't you allow emails. I want to send you a email and ask you a question.

Answer 1

Liberals want equality between the classes, which, when looked at at face value, is a very noble cause. However the problem comes in when it comes to HOW they try to impliment this equality. Liberals ALWAYS say that the money needs to come from the rich, and that the rich need to pay more, and more. Did you know that the richest 5% of the U.S. pay more than 55% of what they earn? In a country that raises taxes on cigarettes to get the smokers (who are paying a hefty percentage of the cost of Medicare with their habit), to quit. Does this high tax on the rich mean that the liberals want successful people to quit striving for success?

But I digress.

This "hatred" of the rich that the liberals have is dangerously similair to the rhetoric that the Bolsheviks where spewing before the Russian revolution that led to the formation of the U.S.S.R (Union of SOVIET SOCIALIST Republics).

Many of the ideas the Liberals are bandying about are very similair to the "promised" benefits the people of the U.S.S.R were promised before and during the revolution.
Free Health Care for everyone, is a good example
One of Hilary's pet projects, that sounds good in it's intention, but would be a disaster when actually implemented. Your taxes would be raised radically by this plan alone, and the ridiculous part is that most of that money wouldn't be for actual medical care, it would go to the massive beurocratic monster that would have to manage it!

The liberals have a plan for everything, and, if you study it carefully it will always have two common things in it. 1) We'll need to raise your taxes, and 2) We'll add a department to the already too large government, that will "oversee" how that money gets spent. Who do you think is going to pay for all those new government employees?

In the end, if the Liberals had their way, we'd be taxed to the point that we just might as well hand over our paychecks to the government and have them dole out what we need, like housing, food, water, etc... and THAT is what happened in the U.S.S.R, and the mess that resulted is in the history books for you to read. It's interesting to me however that the members of the Kremlin seemed to be living just fine while their "comrades" had a hard time keeping warm in the winter. Much like our Liberal friends who take Lear jets to debates where they tell us to do our part to save the planet from global warming. Or Our liberal friends who live in huge mansions, and say they are liberals because they want to help the "little guy"
Did you know that these people get unbelievable tax breaks for being politicians? Which makes them the only rich people in our country that DON'T pay over 55% of their income in taxes?
That smacks of the same two faced rhetoric the socialists spewed in Russia so many years ago to me.
And to all of you who are suckered in by the rhetoric of the "Liberal elite" I'd like to say, read the history of the Russian Empire, and when you are done researching it remember the words of a very wise man who said,
"Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeat it."

Answer 2

Current examples can be found in the platforms of the Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination. For instance, all three of them are strong proponents of Universeal Health Care - such programs epitomize socialism.

The 'communist' label really has to be restricted to the more fringe elements of the liberal movement - where you can find openly communist and sympathetic organizations. Every Che Guevera shirt you see in a liberal demonstration, for instance, is a (mild, relatively harmless) endorsement of communist revolution.


Thing is, socialism may sound scary, but socialist programs are pretty common and well accepted in American society. Social Security is a socialist program. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Welfare) is a socialist program. America is even described - acurately - as a "social-democracy."

And, while communism hasn't been successful, and probably isn't a viable economic system, socialism borrows a great deal of it's ideaology (generally minus the violent revolution bits) from it. To be a socialist is to be at least sympathetic to the fundamental concepts of communism and other egalitarian ideaologies.

Answer 3

Because both commies and socialists want the government to help the downtrodden. The idea behind communism is to create a new society where everyone shares everything in common, socialists want a similar goal. The main difference is that most socialists don't want to totally do away with private property. There are socialist nations in this world, like Denmark and Sweden, where the taxes are really high. The idea is make the distribution of wealth more equal. Like Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Liberals want similar things. It was FDR(a democrat) who started the New Deal. I know Hillary is into national healthcare and things like that.

Answer 4

Lets go to Websters and say what it has to say lets start with communist.
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

The liberal wing of the supreme court has deteremine that a town can take your home away so they can bring in condos.
They are always been ones for class envy taxing the rich for the poor. You can go to last nights DNC debate to find many good examples just look for them. They firmly believe that if you are rich you are evil and it needs to be taken from you.
Now on to socialist
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Function: noun
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

Hillary's healtn care to give control of the government to them. Look at the laws that are already setup that you can't do on your property without the approval of the government. They have already regulated trans fats, tax tobacco, and more than willing to tell you where should live etc.
They already determine now what cars.

They don't believe in rewarding hard work and that starts in the schools but sports where kids aren't suppose to keep score. Or hand out awards to everyone so no one is left out.

Liberals also have decided to attack religion you will notice here even how they always lump Christians with Muslims or worst yet saying the Christians are worse the Muslims.

That is my take for what is worth.

Answer 5

Because they would like to have our government control more and more aspects of our lives.

This would include:

1 - Banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs.

Honestly, I'd rather see market forces dictate this. All you'd do is make it hard for poor people to buy light bulbs. Compact fluorescents cost a lot more going in.

2 - Removal of faith from the public forum.

The ACLU actually sued to have a cross ON PRIVATE LAND mourning the Katrina victims removed because it was "too close to public land". They also have sued to remove a cross in San Diego that has stood for more than 100 years.

3 - Banning Spanking.

Yes. It's been kicked around here in California. Unfortunately, the intent is to stop child abusers, which this would not do. However, it's also proposed by a single female legislator with no children. And we're supposed to believe she understands child rearing?

4 - Universal Healthcare

Depending on how this would be structured, the worst would be a government monopoly. While I agree there are issues in this country with respects to health care, a government monopoly program would cause far more problems than it solves. Do you really want the government deciding whether your care is appropriate? I sure don't.

These are all 'liberal' causes. Note, I will make a distinction from libertarians here, because they, in general, want smaller government.

Answer 6

Some are: communist,socialist,bleeding hearts and some wish to tear down the U.S.A. by changing the constitution to their beliefs.not to interpret it as the way it was ment to be. But many have ruined thier lives by thier own doings and wants more company.

Answer 7

Communist and socialist are clichés used by some people to label those who don't agree with them.

Republicans and democrats are faces from the same coin.

Answer 8

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6853827&nav=4QcS

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 28, 2004, in San Francisco at a Democrat Party fundraiser)

"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 2, 2007, at DNC Winter Meeting - regarding profits earned by oil companies, which are not [yet] owned by the government)

"As president I know I can't kill, jail or occupy every nation we don't agree with and I cannot just wish that all the terrorists be wiped off the face of the Earth" (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 10, 2007, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire)

"We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now" — (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — March 24, 2007, at a health care forum in Las Vegas)

Answer 9

Class envy... the redistribution of wealth

Universal Healthcare... the government taking over yet another private entity "for the good of the people".

Answer 10

1 specific example :

socialized health care - the neolibs want the success full in the country to be forced by the government to pay for the poor's health care . A socialist views everyone's income as a whole , this is not the way America was meant to be