America Before the Entitlement State

[Bfgrn]

SO...when the recent economic crisis hit, and millions of people lost their jobs due to nothing they did wrong, you would leave them out in the cold... of course, they could BEG.

Hey, you have the right to your beliefs, just don't try to pass off this BULLSHIT:

"Yup. And the left is just as happy to accuse anyone not in favor of increasing dependency on government of hating the poor, or being heartless and cruel ("Let him die!!"). Idiocy has no party affiliation."

You can't SAY you care, and NOT care...

See this is what I'm talking about. Your view is at least as stilted and black/white as those you're criticizing. You're stuck in this rut which insists the only way to 'care' is to support compulsive government programs. And anyone who doesn't support your preferred solution doesn't care. Are you seriously that closed minded?

WELL, what is your solution? If there was no Social Security, millions of people would have been without a job and no temporary income to get by. It would have been a human disaster.

 

[Foxfyre]

News flash for Bfgm, Chairman Mao was using the definition of 'liberalism' that is now embraced as "Classical Liberalism" by Modern American Conservatives. (Look up the definition--there's a pretty good one in Wikipedia even.) It advocates individual liberty, individual responsibility, small, non intrusive, non authoritarian government, self governance, and free markets, all anathema to somebody like Mao.

The signatories of the Declaration and Independence and the U.S. Constitution as well as those who hammered out the principles underpinning them were to a man all Classical Liberals. They sought to free us from all forms of authoritarian government.

Modern American Conservatives are not the old style authoritarian conservatives embodied in the dispots, dictators, monarchs, papacy, and totalitarian governments of Asia and Europe.

 

[dblack]

WELL, what is your solution? If there was no Social Security, millions of people would have been without a job and no temporary income to get by. It would have been a human disaster.

Sure, I'll indulge you. But you won't like it, because I'm not interested in imposing any particular solution on anyone. I'm in favor of people voluntarily helping each other. I know that in your worldview, that simply doesn't happen. But I know better. i see it daily.

Truth be told, I don't have a hard-on for getting rid of social safety nets. Programs that use tax money to help the down and out are at the bottom of my list of government abuses. But deciding who deserves favor from the government is subjective at best, and there many who want to put government in charge of providing for any and all of our basic needs (see the health care debate).

As long as we can limit the safety net to an emergency stop for people at the end of their rope, I don't really have a problem with it. But I'm not sure that's possible. Once you put government in charge of redistributing wealth, there will be ambitious people doing everything they can think of to make sure that wealth gets 'distributed' in their direction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

You keep trying to pervert ideas to support your absurd claims. What would a conservative be in Russia? A Laissez Faire Capitalist. Conservatism is a dedication to individual liberty, particularly economic liberty.

It is NOT the absurd definition that you of the extreme left attempt to create of a desire to maintain the status quo.

Socialism is liberal.

No, socialism is leftist. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were liberal, i.e. dedicated to the principle of liberty. They have nothing in common with the authoritarian tendencies that socialists promote in the pursuit of enforcing statism on a populace.

More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works.

You are confused and ignorant. Under socialism, only the rulers have a say over what is produced, what quantity and what price it will sell for.

Capitalism provides the system where everyone has some say over the economy. By being free to purchase the products that provide the greatest value, each individual influences and directs what products will be produced and sold in a capitalist system.

You prefer that rulers decide what you may have and how many hours your will labor to get it - which is what socialism is.

Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism."

Democracy is mob rule.

He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Not really. Marx was correct that democracy, mob rule, is closely related to socialism. Both represent the breakdown of civil society.

Communism is conservative.

ROLF

What a maroon....

Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works.

Conservatism promotes capitalism, in which all persons direct how the economy works via the products they purchase.

Socialism promotes rulers deciding how the economy works and what is produced.

What you seek is slavery, so that you can be freed from the task of thinking for yourself.

Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

You spout mindless idiocy.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

I have more respect for Marxist than tepid socialist like you. You seek the same evil that the Marxists do, the enslavement of people under the iron fist of dictators. But you pretend that you offer a better world. You don't, of course, you offer the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge and the Stalinist purges.

What is it that you, personally seek? Revenge? Power? Why do you seek dictatorship and misery?

 

[Foxfyre]

WELL, what is your solution? If there was no Social Security, millions of people would have been without a job and no temporary income to get by. It would have been a human disaster.

Sure, I'll indulge you. But you won't like it, because I'm not interested in imposing any particular solution on anyone. I'm in favor of people voluntarily helping each other. I know that in your worldview, that simply doesn't happen. But I know better. i see it daily.

Truth be told, I don't have a hard-on for getting rid of social safety nets. Programs that use tax money to help the down and out are at the bottom of my list of government abuses. But deciding who deserves favor from the government is subjective at best, and there many who want to put government in charge of providing for any and all of our basic needs (see the health care debate).

As long as we can limit the safety net to an emergency stop for people at the end of their rope, I don't really have a problem with it. But I'm not sure that's possible. Once you put government in charge of redistributing wealth, there will be ambitious people doing everything they can think of to make sure that wealth gets 'distributed' in their direction.

Let's limit the safety net for what the states or local communities deem necessary and appropriate. Let's get the federal government out of the business of doing ANYTHING that can be done on a more local level. That is the ONLY way to keep federal government programs, that regardless of performance or the national good, attain a shelf life approximating a mop handle and entitlements that inevitably become more unsustainable and less effective as the years tick by.

A compassionate society can exist without involvement of the federal government and, without involvement of the federal government, will likely be more compassionate and effective.

 

[Bfgrn]

News flash for Bfgm, Chairman Mao was using the definition of 'liberalism' that is now embraced as "Classical Liberalism" by Modern American Conservatives. (Look up the definition--there's a pretty good one in Wikipedia even.) It advocates individual liberty, individual responsibility, small, non intrusive, non authoritarian government, self governance, and free markets, all anathema to somebody like Mao.

The signatories of the Declaration and Independence and the U.S. Constitution as well as those who hammered out the principles underpinning them were to a man all Classical Liberals. They sought to free us from all forms of authoritarian government.

Modern American Conservatives are not the old style authoritarian conservatives embodied in the dispots, dictators, monarchs, papacy, and totalitarian governments of Asia and Europe.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

News flash for you Foxfyre...there is NOTHING liberal, classical or otherwise about conservatism... This is a symptom of authoritarian conservative's mission to control and own language. It started with authoritarian Newt's Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

As a matter of fact, Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism was deeply disturbed with the authoritarian turn conservatism made in his lifetime.

The ghost of Barry Goldwater hovers over “Conservatives Without Conscience,” the new study of “authoritarian” Republicans by the Watergate-era White House counsel John W. Dean. The book, whose title is a play on the senator’s 1960 polemic, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” was conceived as a collaboration between Goldwater and the Nixon administration’s most famous heretic. Dean shared the senator’s dislike of the “so-called social conservatives” who have risen to prominence within Republican ranks over the past several decades, and the pair planned a book for which they would talk “with people like Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell” and “attempt to understand their strident and intolerant politics.”

The project was cut short by Goldwater’s death in 1998, but Dean remained dedicated to unmasking what he sees as the new and dangerous breed of “tough, coldblooded, ruthless authoritarians” who have “co-opted” conservatism. For Dean, who sounded similar notes in “Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” (2004), the president, Vice President Dick Cheney, the disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay, the cashiered speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the felonious lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many others are not simply misguided or repugnant ideologues, relentlessly pushing an agenda at odds with Dean’s own (he variously describes himself as a centrist, a registered independent and “a ‘Goldwater conservative’ on many issues”); they are also rainmakers uniquely deranged by their lust for power, their limited ability “to see the world from any point of view other than their own” and their willingness to submit to authority.

More...

The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government: Part Three in a Three-Part Series
By JOHN W. DEAN



"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[daveman]

So what you are saying is the only conservatism that exists is in America.

If that were what I was saying, I would have said it. This discussion regards American politics. If we were discussing 17th century Prussian politics, your claims would still be wrong, but at least in the realm of rational

The rest of the world is defined by YOUR parochial indoctrination.

You have attempted to create a straw man, you got called on it. Try to make an argument without the use of logical fallacy.

You really are confused...

YOU want to make it about American politics, but only after after YOU used despots from other countries to attempt to dismiss the FACT:

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

Your repetitive claim that that is a fact does not make it so.

 

[daveman]

That's actually not true at all. Statist Progressive is about as Authoritarian and Totalitarian as it gets. True Conservatism is about as Federalist it gets. That translates to Pro Individual Liberty.

Exactly. Who is uneducated enough to classify Lenin, Stalin, or Chairman Mao as 'conservative'.

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

 

[Intense]

SO...when the recent economic crisis hit, and millions of people lost their jobs due to nothing they did wrong, you would leave them out in the cold... of course, they could BEG.

Hey, you have the right to your beliefs, just don't try to pass off this BULLSHIT:



You can't SAY you care, and NOT care...

See this is what I'm talking about. Your view is at least as stilted and black/white as those you're criticizing. You're stuck in this rut which insists the only way to 'care' is to support compulsive government programs. And anyone who doesn't support your preferred solution doesn't care. Are you seriously that closed minded?

WELL, what is your solution? If there was no Social Security, millions of people would have been without a job and no temporary income to get by. It would have been a human disaster.

Or they could have gone out and do the jobs the Illegals are doing now.

 

[Sunshine]

Exactly. Who is uneducated enough to classify Lenin, Stalin, or Chairman Mao as 'conservative'.

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

 

[Intense]

Exactly. Who is uneducated enough to classify Lenin, Stalin, or Chairman Mao as 'conservative'.

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

The Progressives fought a Civil War and Individual Liberty was thrown under the bus.

 

[Intense]

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Yeah, we really let them down, like in WWII. Try again. It's Bush's fault.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

 

[daveman]

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

 

[daveman]

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

You do know, don't you, that Mao was talking about classical liberalism, which embraces individual liberty, right?

That has nothing to do with modern liberalism AKA progressivism AKA statism wich supports the collective over the individual.

Mao was a progressive.

The Progressives fought a Civil War and Individual Liberty was thrown under the bus.

Liberty? Pffft. The proles will take what we give them and LIKE it.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[Bfgrn]

You are also confused. WHAT is conservatism? A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' capitalism, he would want to conserve communism.

You keep trying to pervert ideas to support your absurd claims. What would a conservative be in Russia? A Laissez Faire Capitalist. Conservatism is a dedication to individual liberty, particularly economic liberty.

It is NOT the absurd definition that you of the extreme left attempt to create of a desire to maintain the status quo.

Socialism is liberal.

No, socialism is leftist. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were liberal, i.e. dedicated to the principle of liberty. They have nothing in common with the authoritarian tendencies that socialists promote in the pursuit of enforcing statism on a populace.



You are confused and ignorant. Under socialism, only the rulers have a say over what is produced, what quantity and what price it will sell for.

Capitalism provides the system where everyone has some say over the economy. By being free to purchase the products that provide the greatest value, each individual influences and directs what products will be produced and sold in a capitalist system.

You prefer that rulers decide what you may have and how many hours your will labor to get it - which is what socialism is.



Democracy is mob rule.



Not really. Marx was correct that democracy, mob rule, is closely related to socialism. Both represent the breakdown of civil society.



ROLF

What a maroon....



Conservatism promotes capitalism, in which all persons direct how the economy works via the products they purchase.

Socialism promotes rulers deciding how the economy works and what is produced.

What you seek is slavery, so that you can be freed from the task of thinking for yourself.

Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works.

You spout mindless idiocy.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

I have more respect for Marxist than tepid socialist like you. You seek the same evil that the Marxists do, the enslavement of people under the iron fist of dictators. But you pretend that you offer a better world. You don't, of course, you offer the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge and the Stalinist purges.

What is it that you, personally seek? Revenge? Power? Why do you seek dictatorship and misery?

I see you have a need to chop up my posts because you're in over your head here, so obfuscation is your tool.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I call it parochial indoctrination.

The same personality type latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here extol the virtues of capitalism; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. The propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. Conservatives here and in Russia are much more psychologically and genetically similar, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgia.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.

It's ironic, Russia had their own 'tea party' 20 years ago.

When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals. At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

'I Am a Stalinist'
''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Prominent among the speeches and the placards at conservative political gatherings is support for Pamyat (Russian for ''memory''), which has been repeatedly criticized in the Soviet press for anti-Semitism.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

Dictators, however, LOVE communism as it is practiced in the world. Why? Because it is the ultimate promise of ultimate entitlements. It promises nobody will ever be in want for any necessity and all will share in the nation's bounty and it will be peace and light and love and equality for all. It sounds so great the people don't put up much of a fuss during the process to install it.

Unfortunately, it is necessary for the government to seize control of everything in order to force all those entitlements on the people and make them dependent on them and once those in power achieve that power, they never seem to advance Marxism beyond that. And because absolute power corrupts absolutely, you usually also see the slaughter of thousands or millions of those who are inconveninent to the regime or who presume to question the authority.

By some estimates Mae Zedong's 'great leap forward' caused or led to the death of 45 million. Under Lenin/Stalin in Russia 20 to 30 million; and among other communist countries--Buglaria, East Germany, Romania, North Korea, North Vietnam, Hungary et al, hundreds of thousands if not millions more. Also poverty remains rampant in all communist countries as in the case of almost ALL nations under totalitarian governments.

Some might think we are headed in that direction too if we continue to give up more and more of our freedoms to the great god of progressiveism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see you have a need to chop up my posts because you're in over your head here, so obfuscation is your tool.

I replied to every word you regurgitated, not one was omitted.

Try again.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I call it parochial indoctrination.

What a moronic statement.

Once again you demonstrate the truth in the statement that;

The lower the IQ, the further to the left.

The same personality type latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here extol the virtues of capitalism; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. The propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. Conservatives here and in Russia are much more psychologically and genetically similar, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgia.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.

Bigoted bullshit.

You believe that your thesis is clever, it isn't.

It's ironic, Russia had their own 'tea party' 20 years ago.

And stood in front of tanks, we are aware.

When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

When you say that you represent the 99%, 99% of what?

You certainly have nothing in common with those who create and build this nation. You view digging a hole in the desert and filling it in as equivalent to inventing integrated circuits.

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America.

ROFL

More mindless bigotry.

Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating.

Your little tin god is getter very close to that.

Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

You are a confused little troll. You, or the hate site doing your thinking simply fabricated your claim.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

ROFL

What a fucking idiot.

The Stalinists have the same views as YOU, nearly identical.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tea Party want authoritarian government, huh?

Do you REALLY think that lying through your fucking teeth makes you look LESS foolish?

Seriously?

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals. At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

'I Am a Stalinist'
''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Prominent among the speeches and the placards at conservative political gatherings is support for Pamyat (Russian for ''memory''), which has been repeatedly criticized in the Soviet press for anti-Semitism.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

Anyone calling a communist a "conservative" is a fucking moron, a mindless baboon.

The leftist press was not successful in using this smear in 1989, they were derided and ridiculed for their open demagoguery and the mindless partisanship they displayed.

Are you REALLY so stupid that you would resurrect such a losing strategy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dictators, however, LOVE communism as it is practiced in the world. Why? Because it is the ultimate promise of ultimate entitlements. It promises nobody will ever be in want for any necessity and all will share in the nation's bounty and it will be peace and light and love and equality for all. It sounds so great the people don't put up much of a fuss during the process to install it.

Unfortunately, it is necessary for the government to seize control of everything in order to force all those entitlements on the people and make them dependent on them and once those in power achieve that power, they never seem to advance Marxism beyond that. And because absolute power corrupts absolutely, you usually also see the slaughter of thousands or millions of those who are inconveninent to the regime or who presume to question the authority.

By some estimates Mae Zedong's 'great leap forward' caused or led to the death of 45 million. Under Lenin/Stalin in Russia 20 to 30 million; and among other communist countries--Buglaria, East Germany, Romania, North Korea, North Vietnam, Hungary et al, hundreds of thousands if not millions more. Also poverty remains rampant in all communist countries as in the case of almost ALL nations under totalitarian governments.

Some might think we are headed in that direction too if we continue to give up more and more of our freedoms to the great god of progressiveism.

The basis of collectivism is the concept that the collective, represented by the rulers of same, are best suited to divide scarce resources among those that they rule in a fair and equitable fashion.

It is the most profoundly totalitarian idea man has yet posited. The collective doesn't just hold title to the land and the property of the enslaved, they hold title to their mind, to the thoughts, hopes and dreams of the enslaved.

Further is the utter dehumanization inherent in Marxism and it's variant, Maoism. Mao portrayed Marxism as a "scientific" endeavor. The state is viewed as the organism with individuals viewed as cells. One cell is of no particular value beyond the role of supporting the organism.

When Mao slaughtered 35 million, it was predicated on this dehumanization, where each person was without actual value, just cogs in a machine.

I'm not sure where you obtained your figures on democide, but it's more sinister than you posted.

Mao butchered between 35 and 60 million, Stalin between 65 and 135 million.

20th Century Democide

But socialism doesn't just steal lives and property, it steals humanity, that which makes us human as a species. I believe that what drives leftists, socialists, progressives, et al. is a hatred of life, contempt for their fellow man, a desire to visit misery on others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dictators, however, LOVE communism as it is practiced in the world. Why? Because it is the ultimate promise of ultimate entitlements. It promises nobody will ever be in want for any necessity and all will share in the nation's bounty and it will be peace and light and love and equality for all. It sounds so great the people don't put up much of a fuss during the process to install it.

Unfortunately, it is necessary for the government to seize control of everything in order to force all those entitlements on the people and make them dependent on them and once those in power achieve that power, they never seem to advance Marxism beyond that. And because absolute power corrupts absolutely, you usually also see the slaughter of thousands or millions of those who are inconveninent to the regime or who presume to question the authority.

By some estimates Mae Zedong's 'great leap forward' caused or led to the death of 45 million. Under Lenin/Stalin in Russia 20 to 30 million; and among other communist countries--Buglaria, East Germany, Romania, North Korea, North Vietnam, Hungary et al, hundreds of thousands if not millions more. Also poverty remains rampant in all communist countries as in the case of almost ALL nations under totalitarian governments.

Some might think we are headed in that direction too if we continue to give up more and more of our freedoms to the great god of progressiveism.

The basis of collectivism is the concept that the collective, represented by the rulers of same, are best suited to divide scarce resources among those that they rule in a fair and equitable fashion.

It is the most profoundly totalitarian idea man has yet posited. The collective doesn't just hold title to the land and the property of the enslaved, they hold title to their mind, to the thoughts, hopes and dreams of the enslaved.

Further is the utter dehumanization inherent in Marxism and it's variant, Maoism. Mao portrayed Marxism as a "scientific" endeavor. The state is viewed as the organism with individuals viewed as cells. One cell is of no particular value beyond the role of supporting the organism.

When Mao slaughtered 35 million, it was predicated on this dehumanization, where each person was without actual value, just cogs in a machine.

I'm not sure where you obtained your figures on democide, but it's more sinister than you posted.

Mao butchered between 35 and 60 million, Stalin between 65 and 135 million.

20th Century Democide

But socialism doesn't just steal lives and property, it steals humanity, that which makes us human as a species. I believe that what drives leftists, socialists, progressives, et al. is a hatred of life, contempt for their fellow man, a desire to visit misery on others.

You're probably right on the numbers--I was working from memory and the numbers felt too low. I do know it was cruel, some of Mao's involved horrible torture and in Russia, the people were slaughtered by the army or there were mass starvations when whole communities saw their food and shelter destroyed due to some 'infraction' or 'undesirable status' and the people were left defenseless to freeze and/or starve.

But yes, too often progressiveism puts all the focus on glorification of the government and almost none on consequences for the individual. If a government program or initiative 'sounds' or 'looks' compassionate or noble or righteous, then to the progressive it is good. And any who would see that differently must be greedy, selfish, and evil.