Liberals win: America to become Communist/Socialist

[quip]

You're asking that? You live out in left field. Waaay out in left field.

:chuckle: Howdy neighbor, the place seems quite spacious.

 

[quip]

well, for starters, there's a wall :banana:

Awesome!
Trump and doser finally get their wall....that'll show those bleacher bums!

 

[Gary K]

in a world where democrats were not just partisan shills, this would torpedo Biden's shot at the nomination, right?

Not only that, it would put Joe in jail, and probably Hunter too as he had to know he was being used for political purposes. He has no knowledge of the industry, no experience in the industry, and he's put on the board at a salary of $83,000/month. He knew exactly why he was hired at that exorbitant salary. No company pays anyone $996,0000/year who knows nothing about the job.

 

[ok doser]

Not only that, it would put Joe in jail, and probably Hunter too as he had to know he was being used for political purposes. He has no knowledge of the industry, no experience in the industry, and he's put on the board at a salary of $83,000/month. He knew exactly why he was hired at that exorbitant salary. No company pays anyone $996,0000/year who knows nothing about the job.

basically, the VPOTUS accepted a million dollar bribe and laundered it through his son

i find it impossible to believe bammy wasn't involved

 

[Gary K]

Socialism =/= communism.



Those numbers have probably been similar for generations.

It's too bad you don't know a little history of socialism. I'll give you quote from a socialst.

Here is a link to the wikipedia page on the author of the first quote I'm giving you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spargo

Nothing could be clearer than the language in which Engels explains why the name Communist was chosen, and the name Socialist discarded. He says: "Yet, when it (the Manifesto) was written, we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of these already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances; in both cases men outside of the working-class movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolution and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion, then, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough among the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France, of Cabet, and in Germany, of Weitling. Thus Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement; Communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, 'respectable'; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that the 'emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself,' there could be no doubt as to which of the names we must take. Moreover, we have ever since been far from regretting it."[8]

There is still, unfortunately, much misuse of the word "Socialism," even by some accredited Socialist exponents. Writers like Tolstoy, Ibsen, Zola, and many others, are constantly referred to as Socialists, when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. Still, the word is now pretty generally understood as defined by the Socialists—not the "Socialists" of sixty years ago, who were mostly Communists, but the Socialists of to-day, whose principles find classic expression in the Communist Manifesto, and to the attainment of which they have directed their political parties and programmes. In the words of Professor Thorstein Veblen: "The Socialism that inspires hopes and fears to-day is of the school of Marx. No one is seriously apprehensive of any other so-called Socialistic movement, and no one is seriously concerned to criticise or refute the doctrines set forth by any other school of 'Socialists.'"[9] SOCIALISM: A SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES Chapter 2 unknown page number due to having only an epub version of the book. Written by John Spargo

So, Engels admits that the Communist Manifesto was a purely propaganda move in which he and Marx, both socialists, could distinguish themselves from the socialists who came before them. So, if you're a marxist you are a socialist and a communist. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were died-in-the-wool marxists. So was Chairman Mao. The USSR after the revolution, according to a leading socialist of that day, truly was socialist in nature. Yet the press and academia always call it communist as well as China. But the leadership of those nations have always been followers of Marx.

In recent years, however, the old apprehensions of the
unforeseen consequences of socialism have once more been
strongly voiced from the most unexpected quarters. Observer
after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he
approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordin-
ary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "fas-
cism" and "communism". While "progressives" in this country
and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism
and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people
began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not
the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must
have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Mr.
Max Eastman, Lenin's old friend, who found himself compelled
to admit that "instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than
fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-
democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple", and that it is
"better described as superfascist"; and when we find the same
author recognising that "Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of
being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompani-
ment of the nationalisation and collectivisation which he had
relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society", 1
his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.
Mr. Eastman's case is perhaps the most remarkable, yet he is by
no means the first or the only sympathetic observer of the Rus-
sian experiment to form similar conclusions. Several years earlier
Mr. W H. Chamberlin, who in twelve years in Russia as an Amer-
ican correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up
the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in
the statement that "Socialism is certain to prove, in the begin-
ning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and
counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism
achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely
to belong to the world of utopias."2 Similarly a British writer, Mr.
F. A. Voigt, after many years of close observation of develop-
ments in Europe as a foreign correspondent, concludes that
"Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in
all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism".3

The above quote comes from Friedrich Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. The quotes from Max Eastman that Hayek uses come from Max Eastman's book, published in 1940 18 years after he went to Russia at Lenin's invitation, Stalin's Russia and the Crisis of Socialism p.82

 

[User Name]

It's too bad you don't know a little history of socialism. I'll give you quote from a socialst.

Communism sucks. However, communism =/= socialism. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all employ similar predominantly socialist systems. The democratically chosen governments of all three countries provide free health care, education, and lifetime retirement income. As a result, however, their citizens pay some of the world’s highest taxes. All three countries also have highly successful capitalist sectors.

-- https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

 

[Idolater]

. . . These people aren't "liberals". They are marxists, plain and simple. And there is nothing "liberal" about marxism....

100% true they are polar opposites. True liberals believe in individual natural rights that can never be validly disregarded no matter how communistic the voters' ideas are, or how overwhelming their majority is.

What are called "liberals" today have zero regard for the right to religious liberty. They try to make laws that impose their own form of religion upon everybody. Their religious tenets involve things like a right to not have the climate change, that everybody should worship mother earth, that you should condone, approve, tolerate sexual misconduct, and other things.

A true historical liberal believes in freedom of religion, and that includes not believing in these godless religious articles of faith.

 

[Gary K]

[MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION]
I agree. The truth is devastating for the Democrats, Biden's, and Obama. But you will never see this in any of the mockingbird media's news. They will suppress this just like they did with all the rest of the Obama administration's scandals.

 

[Gary K]

I guess these "successful" socialist nations have forgotten their "democratic" ideals. Read some news sources other than the mockingbird media and you'll find out just how much censorship they impose on the media and the every day person, and how little real liberty is left in those nations.

 

[Right Divider]

Communism sucks. However, communism =/= socialism. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all employ similar predominantly socialist systems. The democratically chosen governments of all three countries provide free health care, education, and lifetime retirement income. As a result, however, their citizens pay some of the world’s highest taxes. All three countries also have highly successful capitalist sectors.

-- https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

Yep... fooling people as been a favorite pastime of many people since the world began.

 

[Lon]

Not really seeing how this verifies people in general seeing Stalin as a stand up guy and that the gulags etc weren't such a bad thing...

At the very least, you confirm a good portion of the OP, however. :up:

 

[Lon]

Wow, what a pathetic, self-serving rationale. :down:

Once confirmation bias kicks in? Sure. You are wrong. Sorry, fact. Try to grasp what was being said and not knee-jerk on any little bit you don't like. There indeed are only so many resources. Example: In Seattle, Former Mayor Ed Murray invited all homeless to Seattle. What happened is/was that Seattle and all surrounding cities are not able to keep up with the demand. The heart is there. Churches are building and opening doors. Local government are building and opening doors. In amongst these are those who will-not-be-helped. They don't want this kind of help, just enabling their lives and lifestyles.

Now, you go ahead and throw the first stone as if you truly are taking the higher ground. We've had this discussion before. While I absolutley give and often beyond my ability, you have admitted that you don't. Ivory tower/glass house much?

Let's finish what Jesus said...per your own 'Good book':
For the poor you will always have with you in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’" (Deut 15:7-11)

We've also had this conversation. You don't know the Bible any better than you know Buddhism. You hide behind veneers to enable your own lifestyle choices. You may delude yourself, but not many others. He indeed did say "you shall always have the poor." It was in reference to a 'frivolity' of expensive perfume. Your communism/socialism is showing. I've struggled in poverty as a child. Very much so.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
The poor, who are to be cared for, as I've said, are those who CANNOT help themselves.

You really have a juvenile grasp of the scriptures so it is no wonder you are afraid of us along with Houseman. You are a child in a man's body. Grow up.

 

[Lon]

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all employ similar predominantly socialist systems. The democratically chosen governments of all three countries provide free health care, education, and lifetime retirement income. As a result, however, their citizens pay some of the world’s highest taxes. All three countries also have highly successful capitalist sectors.

-- https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

If it worked?
It may work for awhile, but according to these, not over the long haul.

One outcome is shared poverty paying 55% of every paycheck on taxes. While it looks good on paper, those who will not work and who call in sick where mediocrity and lackadaisical work ethic and practice is encouraged and growing, there is an unfair burden upon those who will-work to subsidize not those who cannot, but those who will not.

So while I'm not against social concern nor paying even 55% *(when you look at your own taxes in the U.S. especially where I live in WA state, it is about 40% already). The problem I have is that private companies still accomplish things for a tenth of the cost U.S. government attempts to do the same things.

 

[User Name]

Yep... fooling people as been a favorite pastime of many people since the world began.

You should go on vacation to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and report to us, on location, about how bad it is there.

 

[quip]

Once confirmation bias kicks in? Sure.

:chuckle: speaking of which: Jesus's words didn't work in Seattle so....that's good enough for you. :carryon:

What a pretentious load....

But you're correct in one regard, we've had this discussion before and you're still only a self-appointed Christian... in name only.

 

[ok doser]

:chuckle: speaking of which: Jesus's words didn't work in Seattle so....that's good enough for you. :carryon:

What a pretentious load....

But you're correct in one regard, we've had this discussion before and you're still only a self-appointed Christian... in name only.

wow

that's pretty obnoxious

dial it back a bit

 

[Arthur Brain]

By the way, here's another instance of the mockingbird media lying to you.



See how often the mockingbird media lies to you?

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...istance-in-removing-ukraine-corruption-probe/

Here is an excerpt from the John Solomon article linked to in the above CTH article.

The rest of the article is found at the hyperlink titled "Full Solomon Article Here" in the CTH article.

"The Conservative Treehouse"?! Uh, pass. Frankly, ffreeloader, you seem more interested in inventing your own narrative rather than what's actually under discussion and your sources are bonkers. You buy into it all you want, one of your "credible" links to me was a holocaust denier. No time for that garbage.

 

[annabenedetti]

wow

that's pretty obnoxious

dial it back a bit

 

[ok doser]

hi anna - good to see you! :wave2:

 

[quip]

wow

that's pretty obnoxious

dial it back a bit

You're the king of revision. Since, Lon failed at the reconciling of Jesus' quote, are you up to the spin-doctoring task?

.....Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’" (Deut 15:7-11)

Contrary to Lon's assertion one doesn't need be a Bible scholar to follow the man's words.

How do you dodge them?