<Well, to be honest with you I don't think your re-definition will work. Too many of us were raised with the definition including State ownership of business, usually basic industries and utilities.

Well, of course you would like to keep that definition. That allows the socialists/collectivists who currently infest this country and the Democratic party to pretty much pull off the whole total control agenda while leaving the "ownership" in private hands, all the while claiming, "Socialist? Us? Nobody here but us harmless Progressives!"

Definitions change. I know what "liberal" meant a hundred years ago, and I know what it means now. Playing fast and loose with words is a handy way to avoid the issues.

Actually, the technical term for privately owned resources totally controlled by a government is "fascism." At least that was the definition in the dictionary when I was a kid. The word is now being slowly redefined to mean anyone opposed to socialism. See? Definitions change.

How much more of this is it going to take before you figure out that GWB is for super-rich people, period, sometimes under the guise of "free enterprise".



When the interests of rich people butt up against "free enterprise", he comes down on the side of super-rich people. In other words, when GWB has to choose between the principle of "free enterprise" and giving tax dollars to rich people, he chooses to funnel the money directly to them.



(Clipped and pasted right off the DNC website.)

Oh really? How has he done this on a large scale? And please don't try to pull that sorry shit about tax cuts being "subsidies" to those people who actually earned the money and pay the taxes. The steel tariffs? Is that pretty much it?

There are many nations where there are no "super rich" except for the murderous dictators who rule the country. You want to live in one of them?