The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
"Bernie Sanders, the 'democratic'” socialist . . . (is) a committed adherent to an ideology that starved, tortured, and murdered north of 100 million people over the last century."
Bernie, Winston Churchill once remarked about socialism. He said it would be like a man standing in a bucket trying to pull himself up by the handle. So why don't you try that? Then all will see why liberal policies have kept so many in or at the poverty level for decades now. If it isn't true, why are there so many on the public dole? The bible clearly states if you don't work, you don't eat.So isn't the whole Democratic notion of how to conduct a political policy counter to what Jehovah God had in mind for mankind in the first place? But I forget that conservative values would never line up with the progressive give away programs all to get the sheeple to vote for your loser politics. I agree, Bernie, there is nothing cute or beneficial about your policies that would help anyone to become self sufficient and able to stand on their own two feet.
If anyone does call this piece of garbage out, I'll be surprised. There is no shortage of useful idiots in our country.
This is (unfortunately) more mud-slinging of the "Jane Fonda is a traitor"-ilk. There are loads of good reasons to oppose Sanders that don't involve uplifting Robert McNamara and the political ghouls that sent 58,000 American kids to their deaths for no reason other than to avoid being called 'soft on Communism'.Sanders visited the USSR? He must have had an okay from the U.S. State Department, right? What was our government thinking? (Don't answer that.) He spoke positively about Vietnam? Recall that, in the eyes of many Vietnamese people, WE were the invaders, not the rescuers. They weren't enemies, certainly, or Congress would have issued a declaration of war, no?We all understand that socialism is a dead end and that people embrace it only because they haven't thought the problem all the way through. The solution for that is rational discourse and education, not unthinking vitriol.
Need a good graphics person to add a comment to the flag backed graphic at the top of this article to help convince the voters. I think something like "Because Socialism didn't kill anywhere near enough people in the 20th Century!!!" would be appropriate.
"We all understand that socialism is a dead end and that people embrace it only because they haven't thought the problem all the way through. The solution for that is rational discourse and education, not unthinking vitriol."Like this maybe;"However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?" Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
Has anyone figured out who lost China yet?Or was China never "ours" to lose in the first place?A Bernie Sanders administration would be a disaster for the USA and what's left of the "free world", plus or minus a Muslim Europe. I fear that that train has left the station. But lets at least be clear on why he would be a disaster!I'm not sure if CPUSA ever actually issued membership cards, much less if Sen. Sanders ever actually carried one. We do know that most of the CPUSA's dues paying members were FBI informants. Socialists and Communists not being very big on the whole dues thing. Such that when the FBI finally decided the CPUSA was not, and maybe never had been, a credible threat and they pulled their infiltrators out, CPUSA nearly collapsed due to lack of funds.I'm not sure if Mike ever carried an SDS membership card, they weren't very big on cards either. I certainly never got one. But we should be evaluating Mike based on what he is doing now, and his admission that his SDS days were a colossal mistake, and WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO IN THE FUTURE!And that's the nut of the Bernie Sanders problem. After 8 years of the Obama train wreck as a closet socialist (little 's'), a Sanders Administration headed by an avowed Socialist ( big 'S') would pretty much finish off what ever is left of the founders' republic.
A friend said to me = you know, if you took all the wealth this country has today and spread it around absolutely equally, within a year those who have most of it now will have most of it again and those who have none now will have none then (of course admitting that a few who have it especially via inheritance wont then and some who have nothing will make a large amount) almost exclusively because most have money because they earn it and most don't have money because they don't value it properly. Many now think everything is to be given to them. They really do not understand that they have to actually work for it. Bernie's allure is as obvious as it is fake, but to those who want to be lied to if it means free shit, he is of course the perfect man for the job. His message will resonate unless another calls him out for what he is - a plain old centralized planner communist pig.
Stop equating democratic socialism and communism.
Who lost China? Is that a rhetorical question?John W. Service. Owen Lattimore. George Marshall. And a merry band of others spent all of World War II, and several years thereafter, "accidentally" reallocating war materiel intended for Chiang Kai-Shek and the KMT to Mao T'se-Tung, even as they advised the latter to spend the whole war violating every truce and attacking the KMT far more often than they fought the Japanese. And after the war, the Truman Administration and George Marshall pressured Chiang and the KMT into numerous "truces" and "negotiated solutions" that took the KMT from being acknowledged masters of China in 1945 to a defeated power seeking refuge on a tiny island in 1949.Lattimore in particular, a lifelong Red, as the Roosevelt administration was full of, was always tremendously impressed by the "charismatic, brilliant" Mao and his "disciplined" armies, and spent years doing all he could to undercut and sabotage Chiang and the KMT and divert American weapons, war materiel, and supplies to the Communists.None of this is a secret. Books have been written about it.
Sanders is the only progressive democrat that calls himself a socialist - BUT THEY ARE ALL PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS! (And they all agree on the fact that they must change the scenery in America so that when they look out over the citizens they rule over they DO NOT SEE A DETERRENT TO TYRANNY THROUGH FIREARMS OWNERSHIP!!!)
Anonymous said..."Stop equating democratic socialism and communism."No.
"Who lost China? Is that a rhetorical question?"Not at all. No one in the USA "lost" China because it wasn't ours to begin with. We didn't lose China in 1949 any more than we "lost" Iran in 1979 or Russia in 1918.You would be on somewhat firmer ground if you were arguing about who "lost" the British Empire. Britain claimed ownership of large parts of the world, and backed their claims up with military force. Over the years they either lost or walked away from most of it. But I'm not aware of any policy of the U S Government that ever claimed ownership of China.Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
To Anon at 5:31PM who said, "Stop equating democratic socialism and communism."Mike's quote would seem to apply....To paraphrase, A socialist is a communist who has not yet found his AK-47 or the will to use it...
Post a Comment