Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wasn't the actual Communist Obama? After all he was raised by Communists. He wanted to fundamentally change our country and he did a lot of that for sure but it was to weaken us. He said he wanted us to be like the other countries so that meant weaken our military and all the other things he did, eg. pitting one group over another.
No, that was Ted Cruz, whose father fought with Castro.
Lenin & Mao were about international Communist movements (really inter-nationality since neither of them were fond of the nation-state) while Stalin & Zhou were more interested in the nation-state rather than movements. The Fidelista Tri-Continentals & Tito, Sukarno & Nehru of the Positively Neutral bloc were somewhere intermediate between the previous 2 camps & in the center & midst of them all was El Rais, The Strong Man, NASSER weled Baladi min Fallahi es Saheed el Mussri.
One should also note Peter Kropotkin wished to discard with the nation-state completely & while the (de)Lux(em)burgers is where communism grades into revolutionary socialism.
So yes there are many different flavas rather than a monolith.
You didn't even read my post. The items I listed are already being paid for by tax dollars, for the benfit of all citizens. And no, taxes are not theft. See Amendment XVI for details.
Also no, Democratic Socialists are not violent. You are thinking of Marxists, Leninists, and Communists. Learn your terms.
You can have the last word if you wish. You have already told us everything we need to know. I'm done here.
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
Free speech is a capitalist idea and promulgated by the capitalists.
No other system even remotely support it.
Take socialism/communism for example, they murder you for saying the wrong thing. We have millions of dead bodies to prove that to you.
Ok. I'm not going to debate this with you. You're clealry of the mindset that everything good is form capitalism and everything bad is everything else. Having a discussion with you would be pointless.
And it's a liberal principles that brought up free speech. It stems from liberalism. It's distinct form capitalism as capitalism deals with private property and free speech is... not property. ****ing obvious to anyone attempting to discuss in good faith which you are not. Clearly.
Left & liberal are often confused & convoluted in the U.S. but they are not necessarily the one & the same.
Liberal since the 19th century just means that one sees the need for social welfare whether by voluntary charity of private individuals or that the state steps in to take care of that area.
There is a strain of Marxist thought that allows setting up shop even within the globalist plantation system through electoral politics, this is what Kwame Nkrumah adhered to, at least initially in his career, though seeing how things turned out for him one can understand how many prefer to remain crypto:marrano,moresco.
So again to summarize (at least in regards to the Positive Neutrality bloc): The Fidelista Tri-Continentals & the Badawi NASSERISTS were about international (many would argue inter-nationality since they were not fans of the state, Qaddafi wanted to dissolve the state almost instantaneously after winning it) movements; Nehru & U Nu were more interested in setting up strong central, national gubbermints; while the Sukarni Socialists, 3rd Way Titoisos & Baladi NASSERISTS were intermediary between the two.
Given what's going on in the news lately, the critics of the International can't claim that capitalism has not produced failures & disasters for some states & societies, can't blames what's happening on the commies this time around.
In fact its the legacy of the globalist war on the International around the world, that is a major contributor to what's going on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
