Yes, You're A Communist

[Mac1958]

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?
.

I'll take a swipe at that if you don't mind.

It takes away the right of the supplier to put dead rat in your burger. It takes away your right to get a cheap, less than %100 beef burger.

Eating rat meat will not hurt you if it'still cooked properly.

A more significant point to me however, is why the feds need to be in charge of simple QC inspections? Are these not things that can be done at the state level? Furthermore, in spite of federal inspectors running around, things still go wrong and people get sick. It'seems the civil suits that truly keep businesses in line, not the feds.

Pete, I appreciate your response. I've failed in getting straight answers from the OP.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty". That is a vague concept at best. How does this manifest with you, personally? How damaged to you feel your personal freedoms and liberties by any given government involvement/existence in (or out of) your life?

Because the spirit of this thread is very simplistic and binary, it would appear that any intervention causes unacceptable damage.

My argument is that freedoms and liberties, on a macro level, exist on a continuum, and that the key is finding proper equilibrium, and that binary, absolutist arguments are pointless and counter-productive.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No prob, comrade.


It would be a nation built on individualism, the free market, and limited constitutional government....on as is memorialized in the founding documents of the United States.

Thanks but could you be a bit more specific since your holy founding fathers forgot a few things in their vision

Like, would black people be free or slaves? Would women have voting rights? Would the evil government build roads or is that for the job creators? Would the limited government be allowed to make rules concerning child labour, workplace safety, the environment, taxes etc. (you know, evil socialism)?

"...your holy founding fathers forgot a few things in their vision
Like, would black people be free or slaves?"

It is a Liberal falsehood that they forgot any such thing.

See....that's why folks like you should never be able to use the word 'think'....wait until you have an actual education....which I will provide:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery .
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book 'Alexander Hamilton,' though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.
The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart



Seems like you are never correct, doesn't it?



And....
"Would women have voting rights?"

Here's a coincidence....the same party that freed the slaves and passed the 13,14 amendments...also gave women the vote.
Republicans.

Democrats were always the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.
And totalitarian governance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just trying to keep score here.

If my city repairs a pothole, I've lost some freedom. If my state kicks in for a homeless shelter, I've lost some liberty. If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

This is the flaw of absolutism: It's just so easy to poke holes in.
.

Are those services consistent with your state's constitution?
Yes?
Well, then....you post is......a pothole.

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?


.

Is there a reference to Social Security, or National Health Care, in the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?

No?

Why isn't there an amendment that give the federal government such authority?

Here is the explanation:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.


Isn't that the truth?

That's okay, I ever expect straight answers here.
.

Couldn't be straighter than this:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

 

[Mac1958]

Just trying to keep score here.

If my city repairs a pothole, I've lost some freedom. If my state kicks in for a homeless shelter, I've lost some liberty. If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

This is the flaw of absolutism: It's just so easy to poke holes in.
.

Are those services consistent with your state's constitution?
Yes?
Well, then....you post is......a pothole.

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?


.

Is there a reference to Social Security, or National Health Care, in the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?

No?

Why isn't there an amendment that give the federal government such authority?

Here is the explanation:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.


Isn't that the truth?

That's okay, I ever expect straight answers here.
.

Couldn't be straighter than this:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

Let me now when you finally get around to providing a direct response to my direct question.

The rest is simply avoidance behavior.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?
.

I'll take a swipe at that if you don't mind.

It takes away the right of the supplier to put dead rat in your burger. It takes away your right to get a cheap, less than %100 beef burger.

Eating rat meat will not hurt you if it'still cooked properly.

A more significant point to me however, is why the feds need to be in charge of simple QC inspections? Are these not things that can be done at the state level? Furthermore, in spite of federal inspectors running around, things still go wrong and people get sick. It'seems the civil suits that truly keep businesses in line, not the feds.

Pete, I appreciate your response. I've failed in getting straight answers from the OP.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty". That is a vague concept at best. How does this manifest with you, personally? How damaged to you feel your personal freedoms and liberties by any given government involvement/existence in (or out of) your life?

Because the spirit of this thread is very simplistic and binary, it would appear that any intervention causes unacceptable damage.

My argument is that freedoms and liberties, on a macro level, exist on a continuum, and that the key is finding proper equilibrium, and that binary, absolutist arguments are pointless and counter-productive.
.

" I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty"."

No you don't. Now you've become a liar in addition to a fence sitter.


Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....the only law to which the people of the United States have agreed to be governed, clearly lists the thing the federal government can do.

And....for an education.....see the tenth amendment.


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
The doctrines that endorse otherwise, are one of the sextuplets: communist, socialist, Liberal,
Progressive, fascist or Nazi.[/FONT]

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Seems like you are never correct, doesn't it?

Seems like you didn't answer any of my questions

Like, would black people be free or slaves? Would women have voting rights? Would the evil government build roads or is that for the job creators? Would the limited government be allowed to make rules concerning child labour, workplace safety, the environment, taxes etc. (you know, evil socialism)?

 

[Mac1958]

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?
.

I'll take a swipe at that if you don't mind.

It takes away the right of the supplier to put dead rat in your burger. It takes away your right to get a cheap, less than %100 beef burger.

Eating rat meat will not hurt you if it'still cooked properly.

A more significant point to me however, is why the feds need to be in charge of simple QC inspections? Are these not things that can be done at the state level? Furthermore, in spite of federal inspectors running around, things still go wrong and people get sick. It'seems the civil suits that truly keep businesses in line, not the feds.

Pete, I appreciate your response. I've failed in getting straight answers from the OP.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty". That is a vague concept at best. How does this manifest with you, personally? How damaged to you feel your personal freedoms and liberties by any given government involvement/existence in (or out of) your life?

Because the spirit of this thread is very simplistic and binary, it would appear that any intervention causes unacceptable damage.

My argument is that freedoms and liberties, on a macro level, exist on a continuum, and that the key is finding proper equilibrium, and that binary, absolutist arguments are pointless and counter-productive.
.

" I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty"."

No you don't. Now you've become a liar in addition to a fence sitter.


Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....the only law to which the people of the United States have agreed to be governed, clearly lists the thing the federal government can do.

And....for an education.....see the tenth amendment.


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
The doctrines that endorse otherwise, are one of the sextuplets: communist, socialist, Liberal,
Progressive, fascist or Nazi.[/FONT]

Hopefully Pete will provide a straight answer.
.

 

[Pete7469]

Pete, I appreciate your response. I've failed in getting straight answers from the OP.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty". That is a vague concept at best. How does this manifest with you, personally? How damaged to you feel your personal freedoms and liberties by any given government involvement/existence in (or out of) your life?

Because the spirit of this thread is very simplistic and binary, it would appear that any intervention causes unacceptable damage.

My argument is that freedoms and liberties, on a macro level, exist on a continuum, and that the key is finding proper equilibrium, and that binary, absolutist arguments are pointless and counter-productive.
.

I would agree that ANY government in our lives compromises our freedom and independence. I don't believe PC is any more radical than I am when I would say SOME of what the feds do benefits society in a way that outweighs any loss of liberty. Certainly there are some benefits to some of the things the USDA, FDA and even the EPA does. However all of those things breech the 10th Amendment. We have largely tolerated and even embraced them, but in recent years these agencies have gotten out of control.

When I get US Forestry agents walking up to me on my property and admonishing me for clearing brush in April because some endangered toad MIGHT be trying to get laid under it, I get pretty annoyed. When I have friends who have been fined $5000 for bulldozing a line through some juniper trees in order to build a livestock fence, because some migratory birds apparently own the trees, I get pissed off. When I hear about people being fined $13,000 for not serving a bulldyke wedding on their NY farm I get downright enraged.

All of these issues were invented by liberals, regressives, progs, bed wetters, commies, turds, parasites, democrooks, socialists, or whatever you want to call them. All of their policies require massive and intrusive government, and the only way we can keep these sniveling parasites from fuckin with us is to oppose government authority at even the macro level.

Just like any "compromise", if you want to get as much out of the negotiations you start from the most extreme ends of your demands and give up as little as possible. When it comes to individual liberty and independence, things that are utterly priceless, you do not give them up easily for bites off a shit sandwich.

 

[Mac1958]

SOME of what the feds do benefits society in a way that outweighs any loss of liberty. Certainly there are some benefits to some of the things the USDA, FDA and even the EPA does...

Just like any "compromise", if you want to get as much out of the negotiations you start from the most extreme ends of your demands and give up as little as possible. When it comes to individual liberty and independence, things that are utterly priceless, you do not give them up easily for bites off a shit sandwich.

So I think we can agree, then, that it's a matter of degree. The only way the two ends of the debate can get at least SOME of what they want is if they're both willing to admit that.

And yeah, I think both ends are justified in wanting to give up as little as possible, and I think we can also agree that absolutism can only be tried in the very earliest part of a negotiation. At some point, compromises have to be made.

That's why I'm not sure what to believe here. The absolutists scream "no compromise", but they can't possibly be serious - or are they?

Thanks again for the response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is quite possibly one of the most entertaining things I've read. Helps demonstrate how insane the far right is.

One might imagine that, were it actually 'insane,' you Leftists would be able to poke numerous holes in it beyond the interminable 'is not, is noootttttttt!!!'.....yet it remains flawless and unassailable.

Must make you wonder.

Once you failed to prove that Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo are Communists, you conceded the lie in your OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?
.

I'll take a swipe at that if you don't mind.

It takes away the right of the supplier to put dead rat in your burger. It takes away your right to get a cheap, less than %100 beef burger.

Eating rat meat will not hurt you if it'still cooked properly.

A more significant point to me however, is why the feds need to be in charge of simple QC inspections? Are these not things that can be done at the state level? Furthermore, in spite of federal inspectors running around, things still go wrong and people get sick. It'seems the civil suits that truly keep businesses in line, not the feds.

Pete, I appreciate your response. I've failed in getting straight answers from the OP.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty". That is a vague concept at best. How does this manifest with you, personally? How damaged to you feel your personal freedoms and liberties by any given government involvement/existence in (or out of) your life?

Because the spirit of this thread is very simplistic and binary, it would appear that any intervention causes unacceptable damage.

My argument is that freedoms and liberties, on a macro level, exist on a continuum, and that the key is finding proper equilibrium, and that binary, absolutist arguments are pointless and counter-productive.
.

" I keep hearing about how seemingly any government in our lives whatsoever (and this appears to be the case with this thread) damages our "freedom and liberty"."

No you don't. Now you've become a liar in addition to a fence sitter.


Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....the only law to which the people of the United States have agreed to be governed, clearly lists the thing the federal government can do.

And....for an education.....see the tenth amendment.


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
The doctrines that endorse otherwise, are one of the sextuplets: communist, socialist, Liberal,
Progressive, fascist or Nazi.[/FONT]

The federal government can do anything it legislates, and if challenged, passes Supreme Court scrutiny.

That is how the Constitution works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just trying to keep score here.

If my city repairs a pothole, I've lost some freedom. If my state kicks in for a homeless shelter, I've lost some liberty. If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

This is the flaw of absolutism: It's just so easy to poke holes in.
.

Are those services consistent with your state's constitution?
Yes?
Well, then....you post is......a pothole.

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?


.

Is there a reference to Social Security, or National Health Care, in the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?

No?

Why isn't there an amendment that give the federal government such authority?

Here is the explanation:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.


Isn't that the truth?

What individual liberties and freedom have you lost that you want back?

So far you've named none.

 

[regent]

Since there seems to be no definition of communist except one that objects to putting dead rats in food, and Karl Marx had no idea of what he was talking about, and you have the power to label anyone a communist I guess that makes you the number one, the biggie, the super communist, and frankly I don't want to be like you. I want to be like normal people and make a sour face if there is a rat in my porridge. Besides, who appointed you to be the super communist?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I guess we can talk about the greatness of Obamacare if we run out of crackpot ideas.

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps this will help some of you leftbangers...perhaps not!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ronald Reagan saved what PoliticalChic calls unconstitutional Communism -

Social Security.

Reagan, the Communist. According to PoliticalChic.

 

[Liminal]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Progressives........as much relation to each other as.......Fascists, Nazis, Tea Partiers, Birthers, and Trump followers.

 

[norwegen]

Somehow you missed: If my federal government tries to keep dead rats out of my hamburger meat, I've lost freedom AND liberty.

Is that statement correct or is it not?

This is now the third time I've asked you a question, and I have yet to get a straight answer. Last try.

Is that statement correct or is it not?
.

I'll take a swipe at that if you don't mind.

It takes away the right of the supplier to put dead rat in your burger. It takes away your right to get a cheap, less than %100 beef burger.

Eating rat meat will not hurt you if it'still cooked properly.

A more significant point to me however, is why the feds need to be in charge of simple QC inspections? Are these not things that can be done at the state level? Furthermore, in spite of federal inspectors running around, things still go wrong and people get sick. It'seems the civil suits that truly keep businesses in line, not the feds.

Inspections are better served without any public attention at all. Demand and competition - the marketplace - can root out rat meat where it is not wanted.

 

[Vigilante]

Surprising how many good Americans have been fooled into accepting, and voting for, communism. And when the truth is revealed, they are startled, incensed, and furious that anyone would say such a thing.

But it's true. There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

How did communism become the public religion of America? The following will explain, ....as we say in science....'its origin and insertion."


In a recent thread, one that illustrated the connections between environmentalists, communists, with the confiscation of private property, a government school graduate demonstrated how offended she was by posting this as part of a scathing disavowal of the above:

"OP tries to connect communism to the moderate left wing democrats." One More Of Those Environmentalist Fairytales

Clearly, an intervention is sorely needed.

It follows:



1. Karl Marx's lethal philosophy is the basis of both communism and of Nazism.

a. A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

b. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

c. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
Vladimir Bukovsky.



2. I don't use "lethal" in a cavalier fashion: Over 100 million men, women, and children were slaughtered by Soviet Communism alone. When that fact was stated, one inveterate Liberal poster laughed, and said 'You sure it wasn't 100 billion?'
And the horrors of Nazism are well known. But both began here:

a. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

b. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

c. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.




And this is what we find leading the Democrat Party this very day:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society



Read more- if you dare, Liberals.

Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Progressives........as much relation to each other as.......Fascists, Nazis, Tea Partiers, Birthers, and Trump followers.

Here is the perfect example of Communist propaganda! Although you missed one...
Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Progressives
DEMOCRATS at the end!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

POLITICALCHIC SAID:

"Is there a reference to Social Security, or National Health Care, in the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?

No?

Why isn't there an amendment that give the federal government such authority?

Here is the explanation:
There is no essential difference between communism, socialism, Liberalism and/or Progressivism. At the heart of each is a faith and adherence to big, overarching government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.


Isn't that the truth?"

No, it's a lie.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

The Social Security Act is consequently Constitutional.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and Vl.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

And the 'explanation' is as ignorant as it is wrong, 'communism' and 'socialism' have nothing whatsoever to do with liberals in the United States; liberals who are advocates and practitioners of free markets and capitalism, liberals who are defenders of the Constitution, its case law, the rule of law, and the individual freedoms and liberties of all Americans.

Liberals are pragmatists who acknowledge the fact that although capitalism is far superior to other economic philosophies, it is in no way perfect, it has inherent flaws and shortcomings, where it's perfectly appropriate to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures to address those faults and shortcomings, regulatory measures Congress is authorized to enact by the Constitution, measures that in no way infringe upon individual liberty and freedom.