Rigby5
Diamond Member
Communism/Socialism routinely fail to feed their people, which is a fundamental failure.Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killerIn my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings
In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..
In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper
After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland
Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.
Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....
Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.
Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”
The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.
Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.
No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.
How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?
There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.
Here are the facts:
In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.
Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.
Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.
When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.
Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.
Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.
Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.
Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.
Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.
You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....
Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....
You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.
Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force.
Socialism and communism came up by people like Marx around 1800 because of the abuses of the aristocracy and the wealthy corporate capitalists of the industrial revolution.
Socialism and communism are against strong central government.
If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians.
You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies.
Why do you think we helped Stalin instead of stopping him?
That is because he was actually a total capitalist who murdered all the real communists and socialists.
And in socialist countries the wealthy elite have all the resources while everyone else eat zoo animals and pick through garbage.....you don't know what you are talking about....you are talking about socialism and communism as if we were in the 1920s before 100 million people were murdered by socialist and communists and entire countries were put into poverty by their policies.....while their socialist and communist elite became wealthy....
Capitalism, free markets and the rule of law have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other system........
You don't know what you are talking about....
Read some Walter William, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and in particular, to really learn how stupid socialism is...read "The Road To Serfdom," by Friedrich Hayek......and you know what...read "The Law," By Friedrich Bastiat......it is a short work and will help you understand why socialism and communism are stupid.
Name an example, which can't be Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela or any obviously capitalist dictatorship.