Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The "Soviet" was kind of a clue.Bernie Sanders sounds a lot like Stalin railing against the Kulaks
Do you listen to Stalin's speeches or just read them in the original Russian? If the former, is it true he never lost the Georgian accent?
Sanders must be channeling Stalin
Do you listen to Stalin's speeches or just read them in the original Russian? If the former, is it true he never lost the Georgian accent?
"The characteristic feature in the work of our Party during the past year is that we, as a Party, as the Soviet power: a) have developed an offensive along the whole front against the capitalist elements in the countryside..."
Sanders or Stalin?
" Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.." -- Stalin
"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." -- Sanders
What's the difference?
" Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.." -- Stalin
"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." -- Sanders
What's the difference?
More than just a language barrier.
" Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.." -- Stalin
"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." -- Sanders
What's the difference?
More than just a language barrier.
The ideas are the exact same: successful people are frustrating the Progressive Utopia
Stupid bitch.....Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
Stupid bitch.....Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
Stupid bitch.....Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
The conservative war on women knows no limits; never ends, shows no signs of stopping or waning....
Good. Women will cast 6 out of every 10 ballots next November. They will remember comments like yours. Can't wait!
Well, if you don't think so that's fact, I concede. Thank you for clarifying that. Obviously no one could do middle class on their own, they need it done for them
Well what country has a strong middle class without unions?
the United States before we had unions
Really what years would this be? Link?
You mean to counter your links? which would be ...
No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?
Stupid bitch.....Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
The conservative war on women knows no limits; never ends, shows no signs of stopping or waning....
Good. Women will cast 6 out of every 10 ballots next November. They will remember comments like yours. Can't wait!
For one thing, it's not envy. It's a sound bite.Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
Oh, this should be fun...the United States before we had unions
Describe what you believe the U.S. was like before unions. A few facts interspersed with the opinion might be nice.
For one thing, it's not envy.Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
For another, the wealthy of that era were conspicuous in their endowments and donations to charity. They were also part of a class system that was far more stratified than it is today. There was a sense among the "lower" classes that the wealthy were the American equivalent of royalty.
That peasant mentality survives today in the "Must Not Anger the Money Gods or They Will Send All of Us to China" mentality extant in this thread.
The AFL was founded in 1886.Oh, this should be fun...the United States before we had unions
Describe what you believe the U.S. was like before unions. A few facts interspersed with the opinion might be nice.
life in the 1920s was good for most people. It was better than it had ever been for 5000 yrs of recorded history.
But I'm sure the rum-runners and the investors who caused the Crash of '29 did very well.
I always like how leftists want facts when anyone disagrees with your sweeping, unsupported statements. You first, my dear. Back up your own point. I'm not playing the game where whatever you say (sans support) goes but anyone disagreeing with you has to convince you you're wrong. Pass
The AFL was founded in 1886.Oh, this should be fun...the United States before we had unions
Describe what you believe the U.S. was like before unions. A few facts interspersed with the opinion might be nice.
life in the 1920s was good for most people. It was better than it had ever been for 5000 yrs of recorded history.
But I'm sure the rum-runners and the investors who caused the Crash of '29 did very well.
Unions were voluntary until the FDR administration. That's when they become toxic to the American economy.
For one thing, it's not envy.Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.
It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.
Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.
For another, the wealthy of that era were conspicuous in their endowments and donations to charity. They were also part of a class system that was far more stratified than it is today. There was a sense among the "lower" classes that the wealthy were the American equivalent of royalty.
That peasant mentality survives today in the "Must Not Anger the Money Gods or They Will Send All of Us to China" mentality extant in this thread.
You're green all over, Holmes. You should look at the Vandies and marvel at what a great country it is instead of wanting to plunder that which you didn't earn. Clearly it is envy
