Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FDR understood but do today's Dems??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:43 PM
Original message
FDR understood but do today's Dems??
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 10:38 PM by welshTerrier2
FDR (see speech below) understood we were at war with economic oppressors ... he referred to them as "economic royalists" ...

it's not clear most liberals today are willing to even call it a war let alone fight it like one ... instead, they seem to seek bandaid solutions instead of overthrowing the corporate state as FDR called for ... today's liberals make FDR seem like a flaming Marxist ...

the author of this article (who also wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas") takes the entire center-left Democratic Party establishment to task stating: "They are “New Democrats” now, enlightened and entrepreneurial and barely able to get out of bed in the morning, let alone muster the strength to deliver some Rooseveltian stemwinder against “economic royalists.”"

He elaborates on this point arguing that: "Mounting a campaign against plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity."

and then: "But in “The Disposable American,” a disturbing history of job security, Louis Uchitelle points out that the New Democrats’ emphasis on retraining (as opposed to broader solutions that Old Democrats used to favor) is merely a kinder version of the 19th-century view of unemployment, in which economic dislocation always boils down to the fitness of the unemployed person himself."

you see, folks, you either accept a model that sees economic oppression as an enemy of democracy or you accept a model that sees the inevitability of capitalist exploitation in which the best lower level workers can hope for is a kind of moderated disaster ... one view seeks to overturn the oppression and refuses to accept the "inevitability of inequity"; the other sees globalization and the harsh realities of the marketplace as something requiring the passing out of bandages for those crushed by its inhumanity ...

here's a speech from FDR ... they don't make Democrats like they used to ... you don't hear much like this today even from the Party's "liberals" ...


America will not forget these recent years, will not forget that the rescue was not a mere party task. It was the concern of all of us. In our strength we rose together, rallied our energies together, applied the old rules of common sense, and together survived.

In those days we feared fear. That was why we fought fear. And today, my friends, we have won against the most dangerous of our foes. We have conquered fear.

But I cannot, with candor, tell you that all is well with the world. Clouds of suspicion, tides of ill-will and intolerance gather darkly in many places. In our own land we enjoy indeed a fullness of life greater than that of most Nations. But the rush of modern civilization itself has raised for us new difficulties, new problems which must be solved if we are to preserve to the United States the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought. <skip>

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy-from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people. <skip>

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution-all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor-these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age-other people's money-these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men."
Liberty requires opportunity to make a living-a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. <skip>

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike. <skip>

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.
<skip>

In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity. <skip>

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.

I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.

I accept the commission you have tendered me. I join with you. I am enlisted for the duration of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Teddy, Russ, Robert Byrd n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i like them too but ...
i don't hear much from them like the speech in the OP or have i missed some of their focus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Byrd? Nah, but he talks a good fight. Remember the hold.
Kennedy, Kerry, Waxman, Boxer, Feingold, Kucinich, and to a smaller extent (believe it or not) Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Hillary "Wal-Mart" Clinton?
Hillary?

A Director of Wal-Mart for six years when they were pioneering their "Always the lowest wage. Always." policies? Who continues to defend an idiotic war built on lies? Who voted for a blatantly evil bankruptcy bill? Who sponsored a flag burning amendment to the Constitution? Who voted in favor of most "free-trade" job offshoring bills? Who is far and away the largest recipient on the Senate of donations from the big-money Predator Class - because she brings home the bacon? Who usually voted for the Bush tax cuts? Who repeatedly voted for the "Patriot" Act?

That Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The one who has a 90% rating from Progressive Punch
which puts her ahead of Byrd, at the very least.

I look at voting records, not being conned onto the board of directors of a bad company because she was sleeping with the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. But Only 60% From the ACLU - She's A Crafty Piece of Work...
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 11:51 PM by MannyGoldstein
She votes "Democratic" most of the time to maintain stats such as the one you cite - but often votes the other way on the important votes. The ACLU, for example, weights its ratings on the importance of each vote - and they only give Ms. Clinton a 60% rating. 40% of the time, in a Senate that is further to the Right than any in the last 75 years, Ms. Clinton voted on the Republican side on some pretty extreme stuff.

She's no FDR, that's for darned sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. The ACLU is non-partisan. How do other Democrats score with the ACLU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. actually , HRC's score was 71%
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=109&location=S&lcmd=next&lcmd_cf=

Manny.... is factually challenged, I guess.

Seventeen members of Congress recieved higher scores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Well.
The link that you posted is for her record so far in just the 107th Congress, not her lifetime record (107th-109th Congresses), which I thought was 60% - and may have actually been 60% a few months ago.

Her record was 60% in the 107th Congress.

Taking a quick look, it does look like her lifetime record is more like 70% - the ACLU site does not show lifetime numbers that I can find. I thank you for (sort of) pointing out the correction.

That being said - does it matter? In a Congress that is so fantastically far to the Right, she should be at 100%, or darned close. Repeatedly voting for the Patriot Act? Sponsoring a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution? C'mon - use your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. First of all, HRC did NOT sponsor a flag burning amendment


to the Constitution. This is a common misconception, one helped along by both right and left wing news sources. HRC has been consistently opposed to a flag burning amendment. What she co-sponsored was an anti flag burning law that outlawed flag burning in specific places.

The Supreme Court as recently as 1990 established that flag burning is protected under the first amendment.

here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman

The second case struck down the 1989 Flag Protection Act, which was passed by the Senate on a 91-9 margin. Only four Democrats voted against it. Why only four?

Because a: they felt it likely that the law was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the court, and b: they wanted to deny the Republicans a campaign issue - a campaign issue that had been used very successfully by Bush's father against Dukakis in 1988.

I don't doubt that HRC's political calculation vis a vis her bill follows along the same lines. You can criticize her for politicking in this manner, but keep in mind that it's a common tactic on both the left and the right for candidates to move toward the center when running for national office.


------------------------------




The Patriot Act is another piece of legislation often misunderstood. Large parts of it were included in legislation that Bill Clinton tried to pass in both 1994 and 1996. He was thwarted by mostly Republican opposition. So I don't find it surprising that the bill introduced by Bush had a lot of Democratic support. There are parts of the Patriot Act that I feel are needed in the fight against transnational terrorism - other parts (parts insisted on by the Bush junta) definitely are detrimental to the continued exercise of our freedoms. I'm not happy with HRC's vote for the compromise on the Patriot Act, and apparently you aren't either, but remember to spread that unhappiness around, since she was joined in that "yea" vote by 90 other Senators.

Hopefully, with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and White House in 2008, the "detrimental" parts of the Patriot Act can be removed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. here's the real story about HRC's involvement with Walmart
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-ap-spins-hillary-clintons-walmart-past


Still using right wing propaganda to attack Democrats with, Mr Goldstein?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Uh... And This Absolves Her How
I expected a piece that showed some evidence that Ms. Clinton was something other than a triangulating corporate tool - but the article does nothing to show her in a different light.

Right wing talking points? The good news about triangulation is that you can win the adoration of both Right and Left. The downside is that you also incur the wrath of both Right and Left when they realize that you are simply a triangulator whose agenda is only yourself. Sorry, there's no magic here - those who live by the triangle shall die by it, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. she doesn't need absolution
Edited on Mon Sep-04-06 10:54 AM by paulk
She became the first female board member of Walmart, at a time when her husband was governor. Walmart, at the time, was a fraction of the size it is now - yet it was still one of the largest employers in the state, and Sam Walton was the richest and most influential citizen of that state.


From the article:

Bob Ortega, author of "In Sam We Trust," a history of Wal-Mart, said Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Because of Clinton’s prodding, Walton agreed to hire an outside firm to track the company’s progress in hiring women and minorities, Ortega said.

"These were things the company was not addressing and wouldn’t have, had she not pushed them to do so," Ortega said. "She’s somebody who could definitely get things done."

In fact, Clinton proved to be such a thorn in Walton’s side that at Wal-Mart’s annual meeting in 1987, when shareholders challenged Walton on the company’s lack of female managers, he assured them the record was improving "now that we have a strong willed young lady on the board."

Clinton was particularly vocal on environmental matters, pressing the company to boost its sale and use of recycled materials and other "green" products.

Garry Mauro, who served with Clinton on a Wal-Mart environmental advisory committee, pointed to many successes, such as persuading the company to establish recycling centers and sell products like recycled oil and long-life light bulbs.

"Hillary had real impact — when she had an idea, things got moving," he said. "When she resigned from the committee, it stopped having any innovative ideas and stopped being effective."



I don't understand why you consider this a negative.

--------------------------

agendas and talking points -


I find very little difference between right and left wing extremists, especially when it comes to their willingness to spread disinformation or outright lies when it suits their agenda. So, go ahead and argue that this isn't right wing propaganda - the result is the same - the tearing down of a Democratic politician through the use of dishonest arguments.


ed for grammar

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, I'm proud of Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Barbara Boxer, being
Californian and all. I also love Lynn Woolsey & Maxine Waters, among others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Congressman George Miller of California is great
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Note: i've changed the title of this thread
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 10:30 PM by welshTerrier2
i didn't mean to turn it into a list of everyone's favorite Congression liberal ... my fault for a bad title ...

the question being asked is whether liberals today are hiding from "the real fight" which is defined in the OP as confronting the plutocracy and waging a war against economic oppression and exploitation? i hope you took the time to read the excerpts from FDR's speech in the OP ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. I actually prefer William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech.
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/us/crossofgold.html

Back in the day when real speechifying was done.

We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day--who begins in the spring and toils all summer--and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for this broader class of business men.

Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose--the pioneers away out there , who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds--out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead--these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.
........................................
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

.........................................

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country;" and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

.........................................

You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
11. FDR didn't overthrow the corporate state, he saved it
Had it not been for FDR we would've probably elected Huey Long, who would've overthrown American capitalism as we know it. Of course the irony as that besides the extremeists, the only people opposing the New Deal were the corporate leaders.

FDR merely did what was right and what was civilized. The problem is that Ronald Reagan took largely took us back to the 1920's and Bush is attempting to take us back to the 19th century. Because Reagan changed the country's mindset and moved us so far to the right, people (including today's liberals) don't know what is right and what is civilized anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I wish I could rate comments here...
you deserve a 10^^^.

Reading the posted FDR speech, and reflecting on his first inaugural address, I'm struck by his point of view as he folds himself into the "we" of the economic middle and lower echelons. Some days it cracks me up; other days, I merely smile. How could a member of the "money changers" throw the money changers out of the temple. And yet...

Soros, no enemy of capitalism, also understands that unbridled capitalism will eat itself if not governed by some aspects of socialism. So, I agree: FDR saved capitalism.

Perhaps the greatest sin of the McCarthy era was to conflate the concepts of Communism with those of socialism. Those trials robbed us of language and thus policies that ushered in the New Deal, leaving us with fewer options and a bleak future for working America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. If every CEO in America were like Soros
We really wouldn't need a democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Dupe n/t
Edited on Sun Sep-03-06 01:33 PM by Hippo_Tron
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. FDR, IIRC, supposedly said something to the extent that if...
...the New Deal failed the US would fall to a Communist revolution or a Fascist coup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. K & R
and an honorary recommendation to Hippo_Tron's reply #11.

Spot on.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. Wow. Great post, thanks.
It really hits home for me because I have been thinking a lot about this recently.

Dennis Kucinich, is about the only Dem legislator that I know of that is expressing this type of democratic/populist idea nowadays.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Dennis and Edwards. Dennis is probably the only one in the House that is
not now nor ever been "rich." I have a feeling he shops for his own organic food and rides a bike as much as possible, I just can't see most other politicos doing that at all.

HRC is so out of touch with the people that she might as well be Barbara Bush, Sr. (Quaker Oats Barbara). I wonder when the last time she stood in a grocery line? Pumped gas? Gone to coffee hour after church and just hung out with the locals? Ten years? Fifteen? Twenty?

I can see Gore, Edwards and Clark being more 'regular' before they were famous, easily. Especially when Gore worked at the Tennessean and Edwards was a struggling young attorney, and Clark wasn't always a general, by any means!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
20. beautiful....
....and where is todays' FDR?....would he/she even be a Democrat?....have you achieved economic democracy yet?....I'm still looking and waiting for my savior....

....in the meantime, this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with corporate slavery and fascism....and they like it that way....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. Was hoping to kick this to greatist but time expired....Anyway a kick!
Glad to see this being talked about..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
27. We need another chance at this great post. n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
28. Thank you.
I have not posted here in forever. But thanks a lot. That was a great post.

My grandfather once told me sitting on his knee that "Republicans don't care about nobody but the rich man."

And I have never seen anything in my life to make me feel different. In contrast I have been disheartened for years at the middling, sitting on the fence positions of so many of the New Democrat crowds.

Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC