Yes, You're A Communist

[frigidweirdo]

You say COmmunism, then at the bottom it says Socialism. Er...

I know liberals only remember the last thing they see, But at the top it says:

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.

Your a frigid weirdo, Moron...

And your whole argument is an insult. Wow, takes a man to insult... right?

Yo cock bite buddy says yes, Salunsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals I likes rules 5 & 6, frigid moron...

Oh, so you want to have a verbal fighting match do you? Well go find someone else to do it with. If you don't have a proper argument, then maybe you should just shut up.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Londoner]

The OP is a cut & paste apparatchik.

So the thesis is that Liberalism is functionally similar to communism & socialism because they all favor strong state involvement in the economy. Fair enough, but... well

Communism calls for the withering away of the state. Political Chic doesn't know this because she is here to smear liberals.

There is a big difference between Keynes, who believed in markets, and Marx, who did not. Keynes believed in private property; Marx didn't. Keynes believed that it was possible to soften the effects of the business cycle without destroying incentives or fucking up market signals. He believed that government should stimulate the economy during downturns (to boost consumer demand) while pulling back during booms, e.g., raise rates. Marx wasn't on the same planet as Keynes when it came to capitalism or the state. He called for the withering away of the state, which, for him, was merely an asset of the wealthy, the place where rent seeking corporations went for monopoly protection.

Again, we know Political Chic has never read any Marx, Keynes, or Smith. We know she hasn't vetted George Watson's very loose source for his Hitler-Marx claims. What about the sources that claim Hitler was deeply anti-Russia and anti-Communist. What about the things in Mein Kampf against communists and Jewish Bolsheviks?

Maybe Political Chic should read Das Kapital, The General Theory of Employment and Mein Kampf. Maybe she should study some of this stuff rather than cutting and pasting everything. She's not here to discuss issues and learn about the world. She is here to call her political opponents communists, socialists, and fascists. She is here to fight for a cause she believes in. If she were being intellectually honest, she'd likely read some of the authors she speaks of. She cuts & pastes blogs or articles that call John Dewey a communist, but we know she hasn't read John Dewey.

She cuts and pastes so as to move public opinion in a preferred direction. Take what she posts with a massive grain of salt.

 

[Pete7469]

I'd like to see Cruz come out and run with this. Trump can't, since he's a RINO, obviously.

But Cruz could declare that he's against any government involvement not explicitly delineated in the Constitution. Let's shit-can the whole thing, from Medicare to all of the various departments. His slogan could be "Bring Back the Old West!"

Pick a veep who agrees, and run on a platform of "let's see who can survive on what's left".
.

I think you're being intellectual dishonest here. No one is talking about going all the way back and undoing everything government has done outside of constitutional restraint.

We'd have to undo the Louisiana Purchase.

I know that I could never get the GCA of 86 repealed, let alone the other 2 laws that infringe on the RKBA. However, obozocare can and should be repealed. The massive regulations that force doctors to keep lawyers on the payroll could certainly be trimmed back, and tort reform that brings malpractice insurance rates in the stratosphere back to earth would do far more to make HC affordable. Than several thousand pages of law that force people to buy shit they don't want.

We aren't talking about getting rid of all the federal agencies either. However I'm sure you realize there is a bureaucratic mess in DC and a lot of redundancy. A lot of the things these agencies do could be done at the state level, and some of them should not be done at all.

The feds have NO FUCKIN BUSINESS putting DEA agents in foreign countries. Drug War has failed. Either scrap it, or come up with a better solution. Even try a foaming at the mouth moonbat solution.

Everything the EPA does should be state function. The Dept of (indoctrination) "Education" should not exist. We need ONE dept for national security, not 2 we know of under some phony umbrella of "homeland security". The bigger that animal gets, it seems the more inefficient it gets.

I have every bit of confidence Ted Cruz will get more accomplished to reign in the redundancy and waste, as well as roll many of the "responsibilities" the feds have taken upon itself back to the states. The states can not afford the inefficiency, because they cannot go $1 trillion in debt evert year.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd like to see Cruz come out and run with this. Trump can't, since he's a RINO, obviously.

But Cruz could declare that he's against any government involvement not explicitly delineated in the Constitution. Let's shit-can the whole thing, from Medicare to all of the various departments. His slogan could be "Bring Back the Old West!"

Pick a veep who agrees, and run on a platform of "let's see who can survive on what's left".
.

I think you're being intellectual dishonest here. No one is talking about going all the way back and undoing everything government has done outside of constitutional restraint.

We'd have to undo the Louisiana Purchase.

I know that I could never get the GCA of 86 repealed, let alone the other 2 laws that infringe on the RKBA. However, obozocare can and should be repealed. The massive regulations that force doctors to keep lawyers on the payroll could certainly be trimmed back, and tort reform that brings malpractice insurance rates in the stratosphere back to earth would do far more to make HC affordable. Than several thousand pages of law that force people to buy shit they don't want.

We aren't talking about getting rid of all the federal agencies either. However I'm sure you realize there is a bureaucratic mess in DC and a lot of redundancy. A lot of the things these agencies do could be done at the state level, and some of them should not be done at all.

The feds have NO FUCKIN BUSINESS putting DEA agents in foreign countries. Drug War has failed. Either scrap it, or come up with a better solution. Even try a foaming at the mouth moonbat solution.

Everything the EPA does should be state function. The Dept of (indoctrination) "Education" should not exist. We need ONE dept for national security, not 2 we know of under some phony umbrella of "homeland security". The bigger that animal gets, it seems the more inefficient it gets.

I have every bit of confidence Ted Cruz will get more accomplished to reign in the redundancy and waste, as well as roll many of the "responsibilities" the feds have taken upon itself back to the states. The states can not afford the inefficiency, because they cannot go $1 trillion in debt evert year.

The thing is, I can't get specifics from those conservatives who seem to argue against any government programs except the military. Libertarian economic thought has clearly taken over the conservative wing of the party, and that would come at a cost of many programs, departments and laws.

Look at PC on this thread. She'll call people communists and socialists, she'll quote Presidents from centuries past, but when I ask for specifics, she avoids.

Okay, then, I'd like to get specific:

• What laws & programs & departments should be eliminated?
• What should government spending be as a percentage of GDP?
• What should individual tax rates look like?

I think these are perfectly valid questions. All I'm getting to this point are platitudes like "freedom" and "liberty". What good are platitudes?
.

 

[iolo]

[QUOTE="iolo, post: 13281120, .

Bogus.

Why hide behind that farrago and word salad when the truth is right before everyone's eyes.

' The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid you are an historically-illiterate brainwashed clown.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[QUOTE="iolo, post: 13281120, .

Bogus.

Why hide behind that farrago and word salad when the truth is right before everyone's eyes.

' The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

I'm afraid you are an historically-illiterate brainwashed clown.[/QUOTE]


Actually, it's truth that makes you afraid.

And that is my province.

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC has now been nominated for the Jerry Seinfeld award of troll of the month, and will be the leader to win for this 45-page thread based on nothing of substance.

 

[PK1]

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.

Could you please tell us, in your own words, what your ideal society would look like?
The only place I can think of is Somalia, no government, no taxes, everybody has a gun to defend his own liberty.... something like that?

It would be a nation built on individualism, the free market, and limited constitutional government.

---
"government, the representative of the collective, at the cost of individual liberty and freedom."

If you follow your extreme toward less government, you have ANARCHY.
The other extreme is COMMUNISM.

Talking extremes is stupid, unrealistic.
The big Q is what kind of gov we want?
A gov for everyone, in the spirit of USA's Declaration of Independence, or for only those who are born rich and/or with fortunate opportunities ("royalty")?

If the latter, you may want to move to England and dream about the good old days circa 1700 & earlier.
.

 

[PK1]

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)?

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

---
"Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, & Franklin."

Usually?
If it wasn't for Thomas Paine, the USA may not have evolved.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC has now been nominated for the Jerry Seinfeld award of troll of the month, and will be the leader to win for this 45-page thread based on nothing of substance.

Your inability to glean substance speaks to your intellect, or lack of same, as opposed to by presenting same.

Be honest for once.....you know that this was a deeply substantive thread, and your problem with it is that it proves exactly what the title states.


...and while you're being honest, admit that you couldn't even read a parking meter.
Let me put it this way: you are to stupidity what the Chinese are to gunpowder.

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC has now been nominated for the Jerry Seinfeld award of troll of the month, and will be the leader to win for this 45-page thread based on nothing of substance.

Your inability to glean substance speaks to your intellect, or lack of same, as opposed to by presenting same.

Be honest for once.....you know that this was a deeply substantive thread, and your problem with it is that it proves exactly what the title states.


...and while you're being honest, admit that you couldn't even read a parking meter.
Let me put it this way: you are to stupidity what the Chinese are to gunpowder.

I am honest, I do not read your posts. I do not take trolls seriously, nor do I consider trolls who respond to rebuttals with ad hominem attacks intelligent, educated or civil.

You are none of the above. IMO someone or something made you into the person you've become, if a they, they should be ashamed; if a person or thing, you are in desperate need of therapy. Hate is unhealthy and that is what fuels you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC has now been nominated for the Jerry Seinfeld award of troll of the month, and will be the leader to win for this 45-page thread based on nothing of substance.

Your inability to glean substance speaks to your intellect, or lack of same, as opposed to by presenting same.

Be honest for once.....you know that this was a deeply substantive thread, and your problem with it is that it proves exactly what the title states.


...and while you're being honest, admit that you couldn't even read a parking meter.
Let me put it this way: you are to stupidity what the Chinese are to gunpowder.

I am honest, I do not read your posts. I do not take trolls seriously, nor do I consider trolls who respond to rebuttals with ad hominem attacks intelligent, educated or civil.

You are none of the above. IMO someone or something made you into the person you've become, if a they, they should be ashamed; if a person or thing, you are in desperate need of therapy. Hate is unhealthy and that is what fuels you.

You imagine that when I insult you, it is based on hatred??

You give yourself far too much credit....you are a zero, a cypher.

What I post is based on honesty: I simply say what everyone else thinks of you.
But...I can see why you'd consider me an underachiever's worst nightmare.



It's not that I don't like you....oh, wait....yes it is.

 

[Siete]

I'm not a communist.
I've never met a communist.
I wouldn't know a communist if I met one face to face.
I wouldn't know a communist unless he/she told me they were communists.

However ...

I do know when some bat crazy RW Cadadian troll starts drooling inane BS on this board.... like the op trolling for attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC almost 500 posts later has yet to be able to produce one liberal Democrat in America who can fairly described as a Communist,

despite her claim that every single one of them is a Communist.

In a way I suppose those of us on the left owe her some gratitude for her doing her part in making conservatives look stupid.

 

[Pete7469]

The thing is, I can't get specifics from those conservatives who seem to argue against any government programs except the military. Libertarian economic thought has clearly taken over the conservative wing of the party, and that would come at a cost of many programs, departments and laws.

Look at PC on this thread. She'll call people communists and socialists, she'll quote Presidents from centuries past, but when I ask for specifics, she avoids.

Okay, then, I'd like to get specific:

• What laws & programs & departments should be eliminated?
• What should government spending be as a percentage of GDP?
• What should individual tax rates look like?

I think these are perfectly valid questions. All I'm getting to this point are platitudes like "freedom" and "liberty". What good are platitudes?
.

I can only speak for myself, but if the meat muppet queer obozo waved his magic dildo and made me emperor here's what I would do.

Completely get rid of all federal law enforcement agencies except the US Marshals, and massively curtail it's scope to that of investigating fraud in state government, and hunting down interstate fugitives.

The FBI would be a neutral tool for forensic evidence research. It would have no idea who it was doing research for, defense or prosecution.

Any case where the feds need to arrest counterfeiters, traitors, spies etc, they will have local police provide fire power.

The EPA would be limited to suggestions, and have no regulatory authority. It could act as an arbitrator between interstate conflicts, rather than using the court system.

There would be no drug war. No DEA, No ATF, and no involvement in the underground economies of foreign countries.

ICE would be charged with enforcement at the border, and those who sneak in or overstay their visa will face federal warrants and deportation, they can be picked up by any local cop. Those deported for a 3rd time would face deportation via trebuchet. (I'm not kidding either).

There would be no federal involvement in education.

No federal regulations on healthcare. The FDA would operate as an advisory agency. The states can regulate drugs.

I'm not sure what I would limit spending vs. GDP. I'd have to study it further, but from what limited study I have done I would say it for damn sure wouldn't be over %20 unless a massive war was taking place, and it would probably be close to %10.

Reason being is that I would eliminate individual taxes to the feds. Period. Federal funding would come exclusively though tariffs and international corporate taxes. Spending would never exceed revenue, unless a massive war was taking place.

Furthermore, I would repeal the 17th Amendment so that State Legislators choose US Senators. This would in effect deprive big monied interests from being able to lobby the senate through campaign funding bribery.

I would add a third house to the legislature who's only purpose would be to repeal laws, review old laws and their impact, and pass repeals on a simple 50/50 vote. It would be based on the US House representation but chosen by county legislators. If a law is so bad that it cannot command support of %49 of the country's county legislators it has no good purpose.

The founders deliberately established the constitution to maintain gridlock, so that popular demands for "free shit" could be tempered by rational men not subject to trendy whims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not a communist.
I've never met a communist.
I wouldn't know a communist if I met one face to face.
I wouldn't know a communist unless he/she told me they were communists.

However ...

I do know when some bat crazy RW Cadadian troll starts drooling inane BS on this board.... like the op trolling for attention.

"I wouldn't know a communist if I met one face to face."

(sniff!)
There is nothing that brings a tear to my eye faster than when one of you Leftists is forced to admit their abject ignorance.



See why mommy was upset when you quit school in the third grade and ran off with the circus?


A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The thread began with this note:
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


This would be a fine time to tie some of the points together:

1. While the United States is one of the few democracies without an official socialist party, in reality socialists occupy some of the highest positions in the “Marxist-socialist” bloc in Congress. In fact, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded as a sister to the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

2.Michael Harrington, founder of the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA., knew that infiltration of the Democratic Party was primary, and it already contained all of the progressive elements The Eduard Bernstein Internet Archive

And now we have a avowed Socialist/Communist very close to becoming the Democrat nominee.



3. Socialism time line.: The Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA. remains the principle branch of the Socialist International, whose primary goal is global governance under worldwide socialism.
a. The SI boasts it is successor to the First International of Karl Marx, 1864. “Ever since its inception in 1951, the Socialist International has made cosmetic efforts to distance itself from communist socialists.”
Congressional Socialists No Longer in the Marxist Closet 1
and
The Grasp of Socialist International


So....vote Democrat?

Then, yes....
....you're a communist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I mention that Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist/Communist......and, of course..... the perfect modern Democrat?

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





1. Creation of the Progressive Caucus is credited to Bernie Sanders. The groups in the radical network include a) the Congressional Progressive Caucus, b) the Congressional Black Caucus, c) the Populist Caucus, and the d) Progressive Democrats of America.
a. Allied with the above is ACORN, SEIU, and the Institute for Policy Studies
b. And, indirectly, the Center for American Progress and the Apollo Alliance. “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated To Save America,” by Klein and Elliot.


Can you think of any real difference between socialist, communist, Progressive, Democrat, and Liberal?




2. The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.



3. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.
Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense. Dennis Prager, "Still The Best Hope"

 

[francoHFW]

That's the COMMUNIST International, dingbat. which has no pulse. Communism is only produced by violent revolution and is never democratic.