they were national socialists like FDR, Truman, and Kennedy than the current international socialists? I mean at least you knew FDR would stand up for the interests of the United States while he was redistributing the wealth... Now the Democrats still want the "movers-and-shakers" to foot the lions share of the US government bill, but dehumanize and demonize them to gain favor with the average US citizen and are unwilling to defend their income generating interests abroad...
Is a little respect and the occasional "I got your back" too much to ask for employing US citizens, providing goods and services, and paying 35% of your income in taxes?
2007-09-06
10:06:00
·
12 answers
·
asked by
floatingbloatedcorpse
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
John S, yeah, I was a little reluctant to use "national socialist" because I realized nazi might come to mind. Then while trying to decide on an alternate description I decided to go with it and see what response it got...
Well, you connected the dots and in the first answer nonetheless.
I really was trying to indicate a United States first socialism versus the International Socialism of the old Comintern or the Socialist International.
2007-09-06
10:28:46 ·
update #1
Since tax payers are quickly becoming the minority in America, you'll have a hard time finding any sympathy. It's human nature to want something for nothing and to be resentful of others, especially those who have been more successful than you, so that you feel justified in taking what is theirs. This is the mentality of most every thief that's ever lived.
The problem with this, and perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel, is that eventually, those movers and shakers are going to get tired of carrying the manure bucket for the rest of the people and decide to leave, go off shore or take other actions to protect their income from a government sanctioned mafia, the federal expenses will go into the red and not come out. You can look to France, Germany, Australia and many other socialist nations where unemployment is in the high double digits, the government can't pay it's bills and services are sub par. The government will struggle, trying to wring more from the most productive in our society to cover their mounting debt which will only exasserbate the problem and it will become a cycle. We've seen it here domestically in many cities already.
But it'll take a while for Americans to realize this. Most have never lived anywhere else and think that something for nothing sounds just peachy. Oh well. It'll be a tough lesson, but it may be the only way to knock a little sense into these folks.
2007-09-06 10:24:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by The emperor has no clothes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm a Republican, but oh how I wish Harry S. Truman was back in office. He had a saying , which was placed on his desk so he could see it every day, It said "The buck stops here" In my estimation there have been only 2 really good Presidents. Harry Truman, a Democrat, was one and Ronald Regan, a Republican was the other. The country was all "together" when these two were Presidents. I was here for both of them.
2007-09-06 10:22:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cricket 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
FDR, Truman and Kennedy were Nazis? You must be reading the Weekly World News! Tell me which Presidential candidate the Aliens were hanging out with this week. Was it Hilary or Thompson?
2007-09-06 10:16:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Today's democrats lack any ability to use common sense. They are so obsessed with hating Bush and surrendering in Iraq that other responsibilities are being ignored. Pelosi and Reid have failed to initiate any measurable changes in the Congress and that is why the popularity of Congress is even lower than Bush's. Roosevelt used Germany and Japan to shield his abuse of the constitution. Kennedy did not last long enough to get caught in his follies and Truman was not able to stand up to the challenges of his day.
2007-09-06 10:14:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by old codger 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
i don't be attentive to what Democrat you're bearing on, or perhaps no count in case you have something specific in suggestions. however the assumption of separation of church and state has to do with no longer setting up a state faith. that's a very distinctive situation from utilizing one's non secular ideals to justify a political philosophy.
2016-10-10 02:12:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, there was more nationalism, or, at least, apearance of patriotism, with the New Deal and Kennedy Democrats than those of today. The turning point was when the party began to embrace the 'counter-culture.'
2007-09-06 10:23:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The average American doesn't really seem to have much socialism honestly... Healthcare, Good equal education etc. tend to be necessary.
Real cute calling FDR a nazi though, despite the fact that he was one of the most anti-fascist presidents we've ever had...
As a socialist I find it despicable that we are taxed to the level we are and not given adequate government services in return... I would much rather have tax dollars actually going to getting healthcare and rehabilitation to the lower-class.
2007-09-06 10:12:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by John S 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
Democrats of Today DO NOT support the Working People.
Democrats only support People who Don't Work.
Because that's where Democrats get their votes; the Elite Rich & the Welfare.
2007-09-06 10:14:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by wolf 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
Truth is taxes were lower then. That was just the start of what we have today.
2007-09-06 10:22:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Republicans were at one time civil and decent folks
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon was elected President.
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon authorized a burglary
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon tried to cover it up
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon was caught red handed in the middle of a felony
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon lied and tried to squirm out of it
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon finally did the right thing and resigned the Presidency
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon's supporters started a vendetta to go after any democrat that ever runs
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon's supporters decided that "getting even" was much more important than admitting they were wrong, JUST LIKE THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT VIETNAM
THEN Richard Millhouse Nixon's SUPPORTERS SUDDENLY BECAME THE PARTY OF HATRED AND
BEGAN WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AS
POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION
2007-09-06 10:14:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
7⤋