Sentences with phrase «why socialist»

This is why Socialist countries have stepped away from the notion of private land ownership.

I suspect the curtailment of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has to do with the ideological and philosophical motivations of environmentalism — and it is crippling to note why socialist bigwigs are still doing that.

This is probably why socialist countries end up being authoritarian.

In my concluding remarks on the interview, I told them, «in any case, isn't this even giving more reasons why a socialist government must continue to be in power to fix these socialists oriented challenges?

A little common sense though, ask yourself why the Socialist Democrats are against voter ID.

That's why socialists and communists don't get along.

Not exact matches

It's the sort of socialist, welfare - state thinking that immediately kicks off that North American reflex of: «Why wouldn't everyone just abuse this system?»

And this is why Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism are very different, and to say that Islamic Shariah Law with a Holy Jihad peacefully co-existing with the so - called Non-Believers in America is the Fallacy of the Socialist Liberal Ideological who wrote this article.

Why do young Muslim American children attend madrasi in Indonesia, then come back to the states and become radical socialist community agitators, then, before entering politics suddenly become Christian and attend a Church where the pastor «damns»» America?

which I guess explains why we always have so much to talk about, because according to the quiz, I'm a socialist.

Just to name a few and you wonder why, I wonder if you believe, where were you to protest the atheists and socialist and gays in taking God out of even our pledge of allegiance.

And why do social conservatives want to spend an eternal afterlife in a totalitarian socialist society of 127 Billion, mostly non-christians???

If we are not a socialist country then why does the GOP keep pushing social issues to the front over the real problems.

Regardless, I can't understand why our church is joining and supporting the rabid atheist social justice movements of the socialist, who are openly and actively destroying Christianity across the world.

Did it ever dawn on you why communists now called socialists would be funding a study on gays???

Why was the premier of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics determined to see Disneyland?

I am also curious why you picked me to zero in on with the fact that these atheists socialists gays are leading the people astray over the truth of the Bible doesn't that bother you??

In 1888 Bellamy explained why he avoided the term socialist:

I've never understood why people assume that Jesus was a socialist for those very reasons?

«Why is it that professed believers in Jesus are all hipocrites.Jesus was a socialist and would have been for universal healthcare.

On reading and reflecting on this work, I am reminded of why it is that I remained in dialogue with the Boston - area branch of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), founded by Harrington and led locally by John Cort (author of Christian Socialism) for more than a decade.

This is why it was impossible for Bonhoeffer to give even the smallest space in the church to the German Christians who wanted to make the Lord of the church secondary to the laws of the German race, as the National Socialists understood them.

Why should they throw away the good times and back a left - wing socialist who wants to control every aspect of their lives, tax people who work hard and support those people who have no intention of ever doing a day's work?

However, they don't really answer the final question: why did organized labor become associated with the Democratic Party, rather than a new socialist - type party?

This is why it is referred to as «third way» politics; neither first (liberal - conservative) nor second (socialist - communist).

In my opinion, it is both a failure of the National Curriculum to teach the Holocaust and its origins in moderate facsism in a «Socialist» party, and a failure by politicians to not just say that the BNP is bad, but to say why they are bad.

Why would a supposedly «pro-European» government stand shoulder to shoulder with the Socialist opposition, who are staunchly pro-Russian and Eurosceptic, in promoting such electoral reforms?

This is why the German socialist August Bebel's phrase «the socialism of fools» is so valuable.

The reasons why, perhaps, are obvious: a working - class socialist from Manchester with ginger hair.

Indeed much energy has been invested into explaining why the apparent numerical majority of the poor has failed to produce socialist outcomes through the ballot (this is Przeworski's and Sprague's famous «paper stones» argument).

And that's why NY is in the trouble it is, very warped thinking like you're displaying today, but of course you think NY couldn't be any better, unless we went full communist / socialist.

It should be EASIER to get a liberal to vote Tory than a socialist; it isn't; why is that?

All the more so given the sceptical British distrust political grandiosity and anything that sounds too fancy, which is why Lord Woolton, the post-war Conservative party chairman, insisted on referring to Labour as «the socialists» during the 1950s in order to make the party seem alien and doctrinaire.

«What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated and it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists were just one part of the international brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco.

And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the international brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco; it's why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini; it is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice.

It's why I was really happy to see him take a SPAD job, confirmed that, behind the scenes, we were on the right track (he can persuade died in the wool Tories of a socialist position by using the language they like to hear, it's a vvery impressive trick).

The fascinating question is why two boys brought up committed left - wing socialists have turned out so differently.

All the evidence is that the so - called Moderates have not the remotest intention of addressing inequality or promoting democratic socialist policies, and that is why they will continue to alienate traditional Labour voters.

We all have a right to be critical and offer ideas and opinion plus as democratic socialists we passionately care about humanity, that's why we are socialists — but we are not perfect, we are human.

For a start you're not questioning why working class socialist labour voters went Ukip in the first place, it wasn't some guardian reading, snobbery that the working class are think, therefore are bigoted, so they must vote UKIP as they're nasty right wingers who dint like immigration, the decrease in wages among blue collar workers, due to immigration, is by the bosses seeking immigration to pay lower wages to make themselves more profits, Appeasing implies going along with something through fear of something worse, to agree with controlling immigration, because ex labour voters are going UKIP isn't appeasing it, why would us being afraid of losing is our votes to.

The wonder is why people like Corbyn, Meacher et al do n`t leave the Labour party and go to the Socialist party, TUSC or some other left wing group.

If socialist Sweden can substantially improve its school system via choice, why not the United States?

does anyone wonder why people are moving out of this socialist state?

I think part of why the government is so eager to crank minimum wage isn't only socialist ideology and desire to buy votes, it also pushes more Canadian wages into a taxable range, or even higher tax brackets, and low - income earners are unlikely to use tax - avoidance strategies (which means guaranteed additional income for the government.)

However, even with all this attention, few exhibitions have asked the question of how, against the background of thirty - five years of Socialist Realism, this internationally - oriented artwork suddenly appeared and why it captured the attention of the international art market.

Once again, the right understands this reality very well, which is why the Heartland crowd likes to claim that climate change is a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth.

I can even see why he did it, given the polarizing nature of the word socialist in America today.

That's why it isn't a socialist invention.

In 1884, William Morris, one of the great creative artists, revolutionary socialist intellectuals, and environmental thinkers of the late nineteenth century, wrote an article entitled «Why Not?»

There is no reason for actions to mitigate climate change to be socialist rather than libertarian so why the partisan behaviour?