Posted on 08/06/2012 10:33:37 AM PDT by jazusamo
It’s because during WW II FDR and his admin considered the Soviet Union and Nationaist China as our allies and victors white the history.
Liberal = someone feeling moraly inferior to a socialist
Progressive = socialist that knows some people are too stupid to connect the dots if they call themselves a Progressive
Socialist = A dirty SOB that wants to enslave and control his fellow citizens
Communist = A socialist that has realized that free will and liberties are standing in the way of socialism
Socialists. They’re excellent killers of unarmed innocents. But they cry like babies when its their turn.
Che Guevara was a perfect example:
http://www.therealcuba.com/page5.htm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Last_words
That's because they were our allies.
They remain our allies today.
They operate the government of Taiwan.
Che truly was a coward.
Saw a “young skull full of mush” useful idiot wandering around a few days ago with a Che t-shirt.
once in the seat of power, its ugly to ride out the storm until the system collapses on itself...but collapse it must...
The failure to recognize that the Nazis were part of the Socialist world--indeed very far to the Left of most other Socialists, if slightly to the right of the Bolshevik Communists, is because the Leftist media in the West has taken up the Big Lie that the Nazis were on the far right. This is totally false, see The Lies Of Socialism.
William Flax
We are fortunate to have Walter Williams and a few others like him who can, and do, state the facts so clearly, concisely and honestly.
Many liberals and leftists who write about the mass murders of the Soviet Communists strive to minimize the numbers.
After all, Soviet Russia was the darling of American leftists for 70 years, and their dreams were shattered when the Soviet empire disintegrated.
So you might ask why socialism and communism have resulted in so many deaths. It is pretty simple, really. Once you have determined that the good of the whole is more important than the good of the individual, then the individual becomes expendable. As Pope John Paul II put it “Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used”.
When you consider human beings to be expendable, you can justify all sorts of things. Even the redistribution of wealth comes out of the idea of the expendability of individuals because each individual is valuable only as that person is used as a source of revenue for the whole.
Saw a “young skull full of mush” useful idiot wandering around a few days ago with a Che t-shirt.There are so many of them.....
Bump to the both of you.
Just so.
Perhaps a few LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist eggs in our omlette, instead of citizen eggs, would be a good thing?
Just so.
Perhaps a few LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist eggs in our omelette, instead of citizen eggs, would be a good thing?
Ayn Rand used the generic term “collectivist,” and I like it, because it gets to the root of the dynamic so clearly that it can’t be used as a political label (which, by definition, are meant to hide the dynamic).
There is a concept - the free human being.
There is another concept - the slave.
People think of the two as a a grotesque dichotomy, with chains and whips and hovels on one side, and cut glass and champagne and fine clothes on the other.
But that’s not how it’s done these days. Ultimately, yes, but not yet. For the mean time, it’s an IDEA.
The slaves BELIEVE the idea.
The free human beings DO NOT believe the idea.
That idea is INCORPORATION.
You think it means some sort of business enterprise?
:: snort ::
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Incorporation means collectivism.
Literally.
Slaves in a collective have privileges given them by their masters.
Incorporated individuals have their rights replaced by administrative privileges.
What, you’re more comfortable with the latter terminology, than the former?
LOL, good.
Slave.
>>>Walter Williams and a few others like him who can, and do, state the facts so clearly, concisely and honestly.
Here’s a great and recent book by Alan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon who states the facts clearly:
“Why Capitalism”
“There is not a single example of sustained successful growth under traditional Communism. The contrast was clear by the end of the 1980s in the comparison between North and South Korea, East and West Germany, and China compared to the Chinese diasporas of Asia.” p. 20.
“no economic system focused on property confiscation and redistribution has ever sustained both growth and personal freedom.” p. 4.
It was published this year and is an interesting and easy read.
I must admit I’ve often thought that one of the reasons the murderous commies are liked by even the non-communist left was because their socialist hero FDR befriended them whereas FDR was unable to befriend the NAZI’s.
But my gut tells me for the heart left it is the more directly agreeable & identifiable nature of the communist that they admire. Truth be said had the NAZI’s not been defeated & exposed as they were I am certiant that the left would still admire them as they did in the 1930’s.
I’ll add that no nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
