Possibly Hillary's message in her "It Takes a Village (not a family)" , she will be regarded as a pioneer for "one governemnt for the world". Possibly liberals are ready to come out of the closet and say the "s" word? ; their counterparts in Italy and France call their democratic party, the socailist party, but our socialists can't even publicly acknowledge the word "socialist'.
2007-09-23 04:47:20 · 10 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
My party started being taken over by socialists in the 1970s.
Do the research.
One source: Wikipedia: Socialist Party of America: Split
By the late 1960s the most powerful figures in the Socialist Party of America were Max Shachtman and Michael Harrington, who agreed upon a parallel strategy of maintaining the Socialist Party as an independent third party that fielded its own candidates, and acting as a pressure group within the Democratic Party. The party itself had become divided into three caucuses. One was the Debs Caucus led by David McReynolds, which wanted to pursue the traditional position of the Socialist Party as an independent political party and held the most strongly "leftist" position within the group. Another was the "centrist" Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington, which also had a leftist orientation, but wanted to work within the Democratic Party to pull it to the left. Finally, the "rightist" Unity Caucus led by Max Shachtman were strong supporters of the Lyndon Johnson/"Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party that supported hawkish anti-Communism abroad and civil rights and the Great Society program domestically.[4] [5]
I am a democrat. Not a liberal. NOT a socialist.
I fight for free speech (even for republican talk radio);
I fight for free expression (even for Christians);
I fight for equality (even for white people).
I am not a political bigot and do not hate half the country.
I'll join you in THIS fight, as a patriot, any day.
2007-09-23 04:57:51 · answer #1 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The term "one world order" originated with GHW Bush. The Democrats are not anti-capitalistic. They simply are smart enough to realize that it needs regulations or you end up with situations like the thousands of home foreclosures that now threaten our economy. The Democrats regulate, the Republicans deregulate. Its been going on for many, many years. It has never led to socialism nor is it meant to.
2007-09-23 11:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First of all Hillary Clinton is a democrat not a liberal... second of all why do you assume all liberals will support her???????? Third of all I believe it was President Bush's father that used the phrase "New World Order," it is also on our dollar bill and was used by Hitler as well...
2007-09-23 19:17:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
actually george bush, sr is the pioneer of new world order. he actually gave a speech to congress where the term was first used in public by anyone. the date of his speech........
September 11, 1991. 10 years to the day before 9/11. look what 9/11 has brought us.
2007-09-23 12:03:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What God has ordained, on man is going to stop. I don't think it's going to be anti-capitalistic, though. It is, however, going to be catastrophic.
2007-09-24 12:46:45 · answer #5 · answered by Caveman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they do as long as it has entitlements and they never have to get off their asses to do anything to support it or protect it.
2007-09-23 11:50:38 · answer #6 · answered by macaroni 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hate to admit it but you're right on! We'll soon all be Sig Heiling Hi(t)llery.
2007-09-23 11:56:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why do cons make so much crap up about Hillary? Does she scare you that much?
2007-09-23 11:57:17 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yup
2007-09-23 12:35:21 · answer #9 · answered by beanerjr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes yes and yes.
2007-09-23 11:49:53 · answer #10 · answered by ken s 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋