Democratic House leaders intertwined with Socialism

Status
Not open for further replies.

progunner1957

member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
831
Location
A wolf living in Sheeple land
If the Democrats are handed control of the House of Representatives this November, the Socialist agenda of Democratic Socialists of America will be the roadmap they follow.

One of Socialism's holy grail tenets is disarmament of We The People. If you value your right to arms as well as the guns you have paid your hard earned money for, then DO NOT vote Democratic in November.


Democratic Caucus Has Links to Socialists

Need further proof that a Democratic victory in the House in November would swing the lower legislative body far to the left?

Many of the Congressmen who would become chairmen of powerful House committees are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-founded by avowed Socialist Bernard Sanders.

The Progressive Caucus has had strong links to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International Party, and the DSA hosted the Caucus’ Web site during the 1990s.

The DSA’s Web site declares: “We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.”

The Congressional Progressive Caucus itself has stated that it seeks the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as soon as possible, and elimination of all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

One prominent member of the Caucus is Charles Rangel from New York, who would become the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee – the most powerful committee in the House – if the Democrats gain a majority of seats in the midterm elections.

As NewsMax reported in a recent story profiling the likely leadership of a Democratic-controlled House, the Democrats need to pick up only 15 seats to gain the majority for the first time since 1994, and a number of recent polls show strong public sentiment in favor of Democrats.

Under House rules, the majority party selects the chairman of each committee and subcommittee, and Democrats traditionally go strictly by seniority when selecting a committee chairperson.

That means the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee would go to outspoken liberal John Conyers from Michigan, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Here are other members of the Caucus and the committees they would chair:

Barney Frank (Mass.), Financial Services.
Henry Waxman (Calif.), Government Reform.
George Miller (Calif.), Education and Workforce.
Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Homeland Security.
Tom Lantos (Calif.), International Relations.
Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), Rules.
Nydia Velasquez (N.Y.), Small Business.

Sanders is giving up his House seat and running for the Senate from Vermont.
Source: www.newsmax.com
 
Explain to me exactly how the Democrats will accomplish anything if the control only the House?

Do you think the Republicans will just roll over and play dead for them? If so, then how are the Republicans better?

I have learned that giving one party control of the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously is a bad idea. I hope the Democrats retake either the House or Senate so they can gridlock the runaway agenda of the neo-conservatives.
 
A little history: In 1967 or early 1968, a guy named Norman Thomas announced at a press conference that he no longer needed to be a candidate for the Presidency of the U.S.A. He had run for President as the Socialist Party candidate from 1928 through 1948.

When asked why, he answered that the entire 1932 campaign platform had been enacted into law.

For more info, see http://www.answers.com/topic/norman-thomas

It's almost unfair to Thomas to call these present-day creatures "socialists".

Art
 
It's almost unfair to Thomas to call these present-day creatures "socialists".
What would be a more accurate description?

True, the socialism Thomas espoused is different than that advocated by present day socialists/Democrats - the current version is even more unamerican and anti-Constitution than the old.

Today's version of socialism is all about absolute political power for the socialist politicians, gutting the Constitution and bringing America to its knees; look at their goals and what they advocate and like it or not, this conclusion is undeniable.
 
Today's version of socialism is all about absolute political power for the socialist politicians, gutting the Constitution and bringing America to its knees; look at their goals and what they advocate and like it or not, this conclusion is undeniable.

That could be said of the neocon agenda as well. Spending like drunken sailors while using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper accompanied by jingoistic nationalistic fervor isn't exactly 'conservative'.
 
Just as dismissing anything that calls BS as socialist/liberal/commine/pinko is the parvenue of the neocons, hm?

Personally, I think people are getting tired of empty rhetoric and fumblefingered 'strategery' as officials fail upwards.
 
Personally, I think people are getting tired of empty rhetoric and fumblefingered 'strategery' as officials fail upwards.
Right. Let's return the socialists/Democrats to power - Clinton and his soulmates did such a good job of shutting down terrorism when they were in power from 1992 to 2000 - and their execution of a cohesive foreign policy was flawless. :barf:
 
Clinton ain't preznit no more. Hasn't been for five years, well before we went on the current adventures. Deal.

Snipe, snipe, snipe...Alienate more pro-2A people with toxic talk and namecalling. Brilliant.
 
Actually, if you were to vote republican, you'd not be voting for any of the incumbents. I sure don't call them republicans. They're sure as hell nothing that has to do with conservatism. If Barry Goldwater were around, he'd throw up.
 
Clinton ain't preznit no more.
He and his socialist bottom feeding buddies were in charge when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Their resonse? Nothing.

They were also in charge when American troops were sent into Somalia on a half-assed mission of their design with inadequate support which resulted in American soldiers being slaughtered and their bodies desecrated live on CNN for the world to see. Their response? Nothing. Oh, I'm sorry - their response was to run like cowards.

They were also in charge when the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Their response? Nothing.

And these are the people you want to put in charge of the war on terror? Brilliant.
 
I sure don't call them republicans. They're sure as hell nothing that has to do with conservatism. If Barry Goldwater were around, he'd throw up.
Well for once, we agree on something!:D

They are "neocoservatives" and therein lies the rub. They are not true conservatives, as was Goldwater.

If neoconservatives were beer, they'd be Miller Lite. They are either "consevative lite" or "socialist lite." It's hard to tell the difference...
 
What are you talking about??

There are plenty of Conservative Republicans in the House.

Ted Poe

Tom Delay

Mike Pence

Gresham Barrett

Patrick McHenry

Jeff Flake

Shall I go on?
 
In before the lock.

This kind of thread is destructive to this place and the RKBA movement.

He and his socialist bottom feeding buddies were in charge when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Their resonse? Nothing.

Not true.

Read the 9/11 Commission report. All the involved perps are in jail for the next 5438 years. The put the people who did it in jail and shut down their terrorist cell. If anything, the Commission found that they so successfully prosecuted the investigation of the WTC bombing that it muted later calls and efforts for more anti-terror work because Congress didn't want to spend the $$ on what appeared to be a problem under control.

They were also in charge when American troops were sent into Somalia on a half-assed mission of their design with inadequate support which resulted in American soldiers being slaughtered and their bodies desecrated live on CNN for the world to see. Their response? Nothing. Oh, I'm sorry - their response was to run like cowards.

Wrong again. It was the Republicans who demanded that we leave. You need to learn your history. Clinton wanted to stay, but the GOP controlled congress even threatened to quit funding the deployment.

Imagine if the party affiliations there were reversed. :what:

They were also in charge when the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Their response? Nothing.
Not true again--during the investigation, the FBI agent in charge (an Arab American BTW) was hot on the trail of AQ suspects involved in the Cole bombing, some of whom later went on to be 9/11 hijackers--but the CIA refused to share information with the FBI about their whereabouts and contacts, believing them to be intelligence resources. Perhaps an indictment of our intel and LEO agencies, but not really Clinton's fault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top