Bernie is doing well
- Thread starter aTUfan
- Start date
Like every other good socialist/marxist... with other peoples money and slave elf labor...
As the official (& unofficial) self-appointed Ambassador of the White Race for the Winning Right of Green Country, I can assure you that we are not into free stuff as we know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Let us feel the BERN, for it will make for an incredible, seemingly bottomless barrels of sick/savage burns on him by the President if Bernie wins the nomination. It would be epic.
No need to worry, friends. Bernie is just an older, male Stormy.
No need to worry, friends. Bernie is just an older, male Stormy.
LOL!!!
Wow
The lack of awareness of the reality of freedom amongst Bernie fans/socialists, the lack of historical awareness amongst you people is ASTONISHING!!!
Let’s tally up how many people died from the evil European “colonialists” in the last 425 years vs how many people died from socialism over the last 120 years. I can’t even believe I just typed that... wow
I seriously can’t believe I just typed that... it’s just shocking.
As I’ve always said, one side is undisciplined & can’t figure out which bathroom to use/which gender they are, the other side disciplined with over 400m firearms. Yet the undisciplined side thinks they know what’s best & that they’d be able to impose tyrannical rule upon 10s of millions of people, as if the government would support them in their sick socialist agenda (most of it wouldn’t).
Actually, I can’t think of a more noble way to die defending this great nation from socialism.
As I’ve always said, one side is undisciplined & can’t figure out which bathroom to use/which gender they are, the other side disciplined with over 400m firearms. Yet the undisciplined side thinks they know what’s best & that they’d be able to impose tyrannical rule upon 10s of millions of people, as if the government would support them in their sick socialist agenda (most of it wouldn’t).
Actually, I can’t think of a more noble way to die defending this great nation from socialism.
So the people have a choice whether to give their money to the state and then have it “redistributed”? The funny thing about socialism/communism is the vast amount of the redistributed money ends up with those in charge of the redistribution as those in charge enforce their policies with guns and threats or actual violence. To my knowledge there is very little history of private companies killing or enslaving millions upon millions of people.
Nominating an economically illiterate defender of the Soviet Union should be as embarrassing to Dems as Trump is to someone like me. Hopefully the Dem establishment is more successful than the RNC was at stopping this insanity
Pretty much any European nation that slapped a East / West and a Geographic name together during the age of empire meets those standards. (The East India Company, The South Sea Company, The Dutch East India Company, The German East & West African Companies.... etc... etc... etc...)
Moreover, they don't use slave labor in the US.... they use it oversees in sweatshops. Any time that you have to put up suicide nets around your workers' barracks, you're a slave owner.
When one is forced to go back to the East Indian Sea Company I feel pretty safe today's corporations aren't going to take up arms and murder the populous which doesn't purchase their products
You could certainly go back not too far in American history as well. You can go back to Upton Sinclarie and the Jungle.... or the migrants being employed at poverty wages to pick the fields in the soutwest, or the slave labor employed by the railroad services in the 1800's, or the children who were being hurt in labor accidents in spinning factories in the early 1900's, or the ones who were being sent down mineshafts, or hurt in combine accidents on farms up until the late 30's.When one is forced to go back to the East Indian Sea Company I feel pretty safe today's corporations aren't going to take up arms and murder the populous which doesn't purchase their products
The same anti-socialist sentiments that we're throwing around today were being thrown around in 1910 to the 1940's. And that period gave workers the largest amount of rights and securities that the world had seen to that point.
Things that were at one time called socialist that we have taken for granted:
The 40 hour work week
Child Labor Laws
Minimum Wage
Paid Leave Time
Anti-Discrimination for Women, Minorities, Ages, etc...
Workers' Safety Regulations
Unemployment Pay
Employee Insurance Benefits
Employee Retirement Benefits
Overtime Pay
Only one of these things could accurately be described as socialism, so rather than using strawmen from the past maybe address some of the ridiculous disastrous things Bernie wants to do in the present. Like national rent control
Doesn't really compare with the millions upon millions murdered in Socialist countries during that time period and after does it? We've consistently seen what occurs when you give a socialist government power and the human rights abuses which almost always follows. Current Socialist States....China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam. We all know the story of Stalin and the rejection of socialism by the people of the USSR. As I've repeatedly stated, private companies don't field armies and murder and imprison millions. Unfortunately, socialist states have this history.
It's not a conversation if there aren't two sides.... Also, I wasn't defending socialism. I was defending issues that, at one point in history, people called socialist (and many actual socialists supported, marched the streets, and some even died for) that we don't identify with socialism today.
Conservatives tend to call anything being presented that doesn't conform to their current economic system socialist. Then, after nearly a century, they don't call the old socialist ideas socialist anymore.
If you start getting mad about socialism, you better start getting rid of the items I mentioned, because the socialists teamed with organized labor in the early 1900's to get those all into action.
You're comparing Bernie Friggin Sanders, to Joseph Stalin. You know that right? This is basically the corollary of Godwin's Law. If a conservative argues long enough, they will inevitably compare a Democratic policy to one of Communist Russia / Joseph Stalin.
I mean, I don't like Sanders, I don't support him.... but I think all of you guys on this thread are off the deep end with your assertions of how incredibly murderous his socialist regime would be.
Also, I don't think the US should be lecturing anyone about fielding armies, killing people, or imprisoning people to further an economic system.
Last edited:
I don’t think sanders would have a murderous socialist regime because, among many reasons, our form of government is genetically unfriendly to socialism and it takes quite some time to get to that point. There would be very little socialism accomplished by him. I do think it matters that his ideology is in the same family and that he’s supported multiple murderous socialist regimes though.
I’m not comparing Bernie to anyone. I was making the extreme argument of the dangerous of socialism and unchecked government power just as you were making an extreme argument of the dangers of capitalism. In the end I believe most reasonable people will acknowledge the dangers aren’t comparable.
Stalin was responsible for anywhere from 20 to 60 million deaths. You can point fingers at the US all you want (I suspected you would). However, there is nothing in our last 100 years which come close to the socialist state under Stalin.
And I don't imagine any sort of scenario where that type of state could be accomplished. Even in a socialist America, you wouldn't see 20 million deaths. For the same reason you haven't seen many if any murders in states that have implemented many of Bernie's policies long ago(France, UK, Canada, Scandanavia, Germany, etc...)
I don't support many of his policies because I don't think they all make for a sound US budget, but to I don't think comparing his desired democratic socialism to that seen in COMMUNIST countries like China, Russia, NK, Vietnam, etc...
Many of the countries and leaders you label as socialist were much more associated with Communism than the Socialist policies that American and European allies advocated roughly a century ago.
Are you arguing in favor of a economic and political structure which has failed again and again over capitalism? Capitalism isn’t perfect. However, it does promote innovation and technological advancements (in part because of greed).
It also promotes oppression and corruption. I'm not saying I'm in favor of socialism.... I'm not sure I support any existing economic "ism"... I just know that capitalism has deep intrinsic flaws just like socialism (not to be confused with the communism of the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc...)
Remember, the US wasn't the only entity that saw technological advances. The Russians beat us to space. They have a larger nuclear bomb than we ever had. Heck, they just announced recently that they have some unbeatable multisonic missile. (Not sure if you'd classify their current economy as capitalist)
The USSR form of government was socialism. China’s government structure is based on socialism as well. Both have a communist party in charge but don’t confuse those in charge with the government structure.
I’m not going to make the argument that capitalism has been historically a far better system compared to socialism as it relates to innovation, standard of living, freedom as it’s a ridiculous conversation and one not worth having imo.
The form of the USSR government was communist. It was the first state to adopt Marxist ideas. "Socialist" ideas predate Marx, and some were actually criticized in The Communist Manifesto. I think most people would agree that the main difference between Communist states and Socialist ones is the forced one party system in Communist states. The reason those states had so many murders and genocides was so they could maintain control via a one party system. USSR, China, Cuba, NK all fit into the Communist description. Socialist states of Europe don't fit that description because they have always maintained multi party systems except in one case. It was actually the split between the more moderate Social Democratic Party (Socialist) and the Communist Party in Weimar Germany that let Hitler's Fascists rise to power.
The USSR was in fact working under a socialist system. Stalin spoke and wrote quite extensively about socialism in one nation. One can argue the theory that socialism ultimately leads to communism. A theory which is historically supported as most communist controlled countries have a socialist foundation.
Last edited:
I had a nice older lady math teacher in elementary school who said that our advances were all do to laziness in early man.
Another older woman, Agatha Christie said there was good greed and bad greed. Good greed means I want all I can get by working for it. Bad greed means I want all I can get so I can put down people who have less. I call this "Let them eat cake."
Columbus didn't discover the Americas to study native art. He wanted to make money off of tea and spices.
So who should deserves the reward? The govermnent or the person who actually achieved.
Greed is the desire to out perform others.
I don't believe there is such a thing as good greed, I just think that sometimes, people's empathy outweighs their greed. But, when the system rewards the greedy rather than the empathetic, you begin to see evil and corruption, and sometimes you even see inhibitions to innovation and progress as people try to make it harder for others to compete economically.
The thing is, you're saying "If A Then B" which isn't always true. As we've pointed out, many fully socialist countries, and countries with a number of socialist policies never dropped into communism. Stalin just wanted power. Much like Hitler, he didn't care what moniker he slapped on his movement as long as it got him power. The communist / bolshevik influenced parties abroad often began to clash with the more moderate socialist parties in other countries. That's why it never took off in the west, even though many western countries implemented socialist and labor related reforms in the early 20th century. Just look at nationalized healthcare and when it started in most places. Just because people want social medicine doesn't mean they're advocating Stalinist (or Maoist, or Castro's) one-party communism.
I did not say everyone funds it equally, they fund it to the best of their ability.
All those countries I listed have socialist constitutions. The term "always" can seldom be used nor did I use that term. My statement was that most communist controlled countries began with a socialist foundation. Not sure why you chose to mischaracterize my statement. Do you have a list of fully socialist countries we can look to as successful models?
