Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[toxicmedia]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

 

[kaz]

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

 

[toxicmedia]

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

 

[kaz]

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

You mean other than the US Constitution? 5% of the world's population being 1/3 the world economy is a pretty stunning success.

I agree you're socially libertarian. As for your being a fiscal conservative, Hillary Clinton claimed to be one too, I'd need a bit more than a statement that you are. Being willing to tax the economy back into the stone age isn't fiscally conservative as a lot of liberals claim. I'm not saying that's your view, I'm just saying why the simple declaration is meaningless to me.

 

[Steinlight]

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

 

[Steinlight]

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

 

[toxicmedia]

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

 

[toxicmedia]

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

 

[toxicmedia]

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

You mean other than the US Constitution? 5% of the world's population being 1/3 the world economy is a pretty stunning success.

I agree you're socially libertarian. As for your being a fiscal conservative, Hillary Clinton claimed to be one too, I'd need a bit more than a statement that you are. Being willing to tax the economy back into the stone age isn't fiscally conservative as a lot of liberals claim. I'm not saying that's your view, I'm just saying why the simple declaration is meaningless to me.

I'm all about letting the chips fall.......but I also believe there are people who can't help themselves.

I blame the American people for reaping the rewards of their own apathy, but not for long considering any great society creates that, and not just amongst liberals

 

[Steinlight]

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

You say that it gives Wyoming influence over California, I say it contains California's influence on exclusively determining the course of the Republic. As a supporter of federalism, I support concentration of power in the states, and don't believe that a couple major cities should effectively control electoral politics just because they have more people. Abolishing the electoral college effectively eliminates the influence of states and those residing outside of major urban centers. I don't think this a good thing at all because not only does it lead to these major cities controlling our politics and ostracizing everyone else, it moves politics in a significantly more liberal direction which I oppose.

 

[Steinlight]

Liberals

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

 

[Pogo]

National Socialism = BIG GOVERNMENT. That's liberal.Nazi Germany had huge swaths of its economy and culture controlled by government. That's liberal. Communism = BIG GOVERNMENT that too is liberal. Total command economy. A Democrats wet dream.

"Liberal" has absolutely nothing to do with what size one's government comes in. Nor does communism.
Clearly you're not ready for this.

 

[toxicmedia]

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

You say that it gives Wyoming influence over California, I say it contains California's influence on exclusively determining the course of the Republic. As a supporter of federalism, I support concentration of power in the states, and don't believe that a couple major cities should effectively control electoral politics just because they have more people. Abolishing the electoral college effectively eliminates the influence of states and those residing outside of major urban centers. I don't think this a good thing at all because not only does it lead to these major cities controlling our politics and ostracizing everyone else, it moves politics in a significantly more liberal direction which I oppose.

Part of the discussion people who support the electoral college will never have with me involves whether or not the electoral college actually does eliminate the influence of states and those residing outside of major urban centers.

That involves comparing the disadvantages physical distance put between rural areas and Philadelphia/New York back in the 1700's, which caused the need for disproportianate weight to the votes from rural areas

 

[kaz]

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

You mean other than the US Constitution? 5% of the world's population being 1/3 the world economy is a pretty stunning success.

I agree you're socially libertarian. As for your being a fiscal conservative, Hillary Clinton claimed to be one too, I'd need a bit more than a statement that you are. Being willing to tax the economy back into the stone age isn't fiscally conservative as a lot of liberals claim. I'm not saying that's your view, I'm just saying why the simple declaration is meaningless to me.

I'm all about letting the chips fall.......but I also believe there are people who can't help themselves.

I blame the American people for reaping the rewards of their own apathy, but not for long considering any great society creates that, and not just amongst liberals

What does that have to do with the point?

 

[Steinlight]

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

You say that it gives Wyoming influence over California, I say it contains California's influence on exclusively determining the course of the Republic. As a supporter of federalism, I support concentration of power in the states, and don't believe that a couple major cities should effectively control electoral politics just because they have more people. Abolishing the electoral college effectively eliminates the influence of states and those residing outside of major urban centers. I don't think this a good thing at all because not only does it lead to these major cities controlling our politics and ostracizing everyone else, it moves politics in a significantly more liberal direction which I oppose.

Part of the discussion people who support the electoral college will never have with me involves whether or not the electoral college actually does eliminate the influence of states and those residing outside of major urban centers.

That involves comparing the disadvantages physical distance put between rural areas and Philadelphia/New York back in the 1700's, which caused the need for disproportianate weight to the votes from rural areas

Discussion about what?

 

[kaz]

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

So we need government to make our choices for us to protect us from making bad ones? Thank God we have a moral government that can make our choices for us better than we can. You sure trust them to give them that kind of power. I'm not sure why the liberals bother you so much when you trust government to be the guardian of morality. BTW, they don't deserve that trust.

Now liberals can walk through your door. Government needs to confiscate our money and give it to the right causes because we may not pick the right ones or give enough. Government has to ensure we have access to free birth control because we can't trust people to provide it themselves. It's a never ending cycle.

 

[toxicmedia]

Really?...where?......show me a quote from this site, or a video from a news broadcast, or an article written by a liberal, that espouses the government controlling everything......here is the US.

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

Drug use is only a problem if you're an alchoholic or an addict, and you can't create laws to change that. For that there is AA and NA.

Gambling is a fun hobby unless you're addicted to it. Gambling addiction is incurable and bearly treatable. And not with laws.

Prostitution like so many things is not so bad without the stigma prudes dump onto it, and the illegality of it creating the crime surrounding it.

 

[Steinlight]

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

So we need government to make our choices for us to protect us from making bad ones? Thank God we have a moral government that can make our choices for us better than we can. You sure trust them to give them that kind of power. I'm not sure why the liberals bother you so much when you trust government to be the guardian of morality. BTW, they don't deserve that trust.

Now liberals can walk through your door. Government needs to confiscate our money and give it to the right causes because we may not pick the right ones or give enough. Government has to ensure we have access to free birth control because we can't trust people to provide it themselves. It's a never ending cycle.

Yes, at a certain level, people need to be protected by the state, both internally and externally. So unless you are against the idea of a state and policing powers on principle, I don't see why you are so offended by my notion the government should at some level contain and restrict harmful vices.

The problem with Libertarianism is they view humans beings as atomistic individuals who actions have no effect on the greater community, whether it be socially or economically. Some don't recognize this, others accept it and don't care. So either they are ignorant or nihilistic. So I simply disagree with them on this point. I think they make good points on decentralization of power but their hyper-individualism and materialism disgusts me.

Our government isn't moral at the moment because the people aren't moral. John Adams even said our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.

 

[kaz]

Yes, at a certain level, people need to be protected by the state, both internally and externally. So unless you are against the idea of a state and policing powers on principle, I don't see why you are so offended by my notion the government should at some level contain and restrict harmful vices.

Anything in this other than government using force to compel us to follow morality laws when we have not and are not harming anyone is a strawman.

The problem with Libertarianism is they view humans beings as atomistic individuals who actions have no effect on the greater community, whether it be socially or economically. Some don't recognize this, others accept it and don't care. So either they are ignorant or nihilistic. So I simply disagree with them on this point.

Bull. We are responsible for what we do to the community. What I specifically argued is we are not responsible to the community for what we do to ourselves and the community has no right to make our choices for us because some people will do it in a way that affects the community. Someone harms the community? Hold them accountable. Can we jail teenage black boys from certain neighborhoods because we can show statistically they are highly likely to commit a crime? Or are they responsible once they commit a crime? I'd argue the latter.

I think they make good points on decentralization of power but their hyper-individualism and materialism disgusts me.

Yet again, what a load. That we don't think others should use force to makes our choices that don't effect others makes us those things is ridiculous.

Our government isn't moral at the moment because the people aren't moral. John Adams even said our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.

And the power that John Adams and friends left us was virtually identical to what small government libertarians support today. So he's a bad example for your morality police arguments.

 

[Steinlight]

What don't liberals want to control? You can't even do government staying out of something without controlling it. Abortion? Birth control? People are free to get those, and if they aren't free, they aren't free to get them, government has to pay for it or it's denying it!

You're not liberals. You're authoritarian leftists. Marxist. I am a liberal, I'm a small government libertarian. I support freedom, you are the opposite in every way.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

Drug use is only a problem if you're an alchoholic or an addict, and you can't create laws to change that. For that there is AA and NA.

Gambling is a fun hobby unless you're addicted to it. Gambling addiction is incurable and bearly treatable. And not with laws.

Prostitution like so many things is not so bad without the stigma prudes dump onto it, and the illegality of it creating the crime surrounding it.

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

Your standard for whether something is legal is whether it is fun to you? That is a subjective and dangerous standard if applied to its extremes. I don't think it is fun, nor do I think bankruptcy or losing an important paycheck is fun, especially if someone has a wife and kids, and no, not all such people are addicts.

So republican prudes cause prostitutes to use drugs, get diseases, commit crime, and commit suicide at higher rates? That is an interesting theory, care to back it up. The reason people oppose prostitution is not because we hate sex, its because we understand the undo damage such activity has on the individual, and the costs it can potentially place not only on those close to them but on the greater society. It isn't my fault you are so atomized and narrow minded you don't realize these things.

Another point is, people aren't born gambling or drug addicts. They are born with addictive personalities. So if you can curb the particular harmful addictive habits through you reduce the social and economic costs that come with said addictions and increase social capital.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.