I have some quotes from a fellow, Joe Argenzio, interviewed by the History Channel. He fought in Europe with the 1st Infantry Division (“The Big Red One”) 16th Infantry Regiment. His unit was clearing socialists (SS in this case) out of the Falkenau death camp;
“I know some of them that I encountered committed suicide– they jumped in front of my M1.”
Suicide. OK. That’s what the man said.
“As far as I know we got ’em all.. and they deserved what they got.”
Over 21 thousand members of the U.S. First Infantry Division were killed or wounded fighting the socialists and the Imperial Japs in W.W. II. Our only job is to remember them all. We have it easy. The socialists have it easy now too– all they have to do is stay out from in front of our M1s, so to speak. Today, there thousands more American and coalition GIs in the middle east and elsewhere fighting the latest socialist/statist menace– the Jihaddists. As in previous wars, their job is often thankless, but they know what they’re doing. Thanks, people.
So, apparently anyone who opposes your view point is a “socialist” now eh?
To paraphrase a pretty good line from the Princess Bride:
“Maybe you don’t know what that word means”.
Anon, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate on the basis for your claim Lyle is of the opinion that ‘anyone who opposes your view point is a “socialist” now’.
Admittedly it is a bit of a stretch from Sharia to socialism but they do share the same authoritarian control of the individual viewpoint which Lyle alluded to with the “statist” reference.
There were close ties between the Nazis and many of the Middle East leaders during W.W. II. They have more in common than is generally reported. The term, “Islamofascist” is appropriate.
Methinks thou doth protest too much, perhaps.
Use whatever term you prefer for a government that violates individual rights more than it protects them. If you dislike the term “socialist” I’ll be happy with “statist” or “totalitarian”. Such hair-splitting distinctions are of little interest to their victims. Nor do I very much care whether a given criminal is working for the Cryps or the Bloods, or working alone.
I’ll make it super easy for you to understand; anyone who disagrees with my understanding of what “liberty” means (and as used in our nation’s founding documents) is a socialist, sure, or if you prefer the label “statist” or “totalitarian” that’s fine too. “Communist” has been successfully made taboo, but it’ll work in a pinch. They’re all dangerous and destructive (when in power. otherwise they’re just ridiculous) regardless of the label. “Corrupt” works too, if you like. It’s all the same to me. You read the Little Red Book and ot reads much like a current politician could have written it. So go nuts over the words. I would expect it.
Remember too, that socialism, by that very name, was considered quite fashionable in America, particularly in the Northeast, from it’s founding in Russia through the end of W.W.II, where the holocaust sort of gave it a bad name. It’s still popular in some circles, mostly in our universities.
The radical form of Islam that comprises the jihaddist movement is extremely anti-capitalist. If you’re anti-capitalist, you’re a socialist in my book and I don’t very much care what you call yourself. Today, American socialists prefer to call themselves, “progressives”, but their foundational tenets and principles go back in a straight line to Marx and Lenin– a philosophy that’s well over 100 years old.
This rememberance of our veterans has taken a major side track here. Those who fought for liberty are heroes in my book. All of them. Too bad the job is never finished. It just takes different forms.
The term “socialist” is inappropriately bandied about by disgruntled righties these days. Especially in the lead up to and in the wake of Obama’s election.
Most types of governments can violate individual rights – socialist, communist, capitalist and even whatever nutty government those “natural law” fellas would subject us to. That certainly isn’t limited to one over the other.
What exactly is it about Obama’s take on the issues that confront our country that makes you see, ahem, red? Honestly, I’m curious.
Oh, and a solitary objection isn’t worthy of a “protest too much” quote.
See red? That’s easy. For starters:
Mandatory “volunteering” violates the 13th Amendment.
The assault weapon ban violates the 2nd Amendment.
His plans to redistribute wealth.
His health care plan.
1. You’re operating on scant ideas and rumor at this point about the volunteer business. And how is this socialist? Funny how the miliarists get around this notion when the draft is brought up. And yes, I know about the Bulter v. Parry, but how is that consolation to someone conscripted to fight in a war they oppose?
2. The last AWB was pure silliness (and I own a few that would be banned if it returned so I don’t relish it). But how is taking away weapons the providence of socialists? Many non-socialists have likewise tried to disarm people. Where in the credo of a socalist does it demand disarmament?
3. Redistribute wealth? You really think his puny little plans to fund a few social programs is redistributing wealth? You’ll have a point when he actually acts like a socialist and confiscates the means of production from our real rulers. Until then, a few dollars into Medicare isn’t really going to cut it. And you’re baseing this off an offhanded comment.
4. Tell me abou this healthcare plan? How is that socialist? And I’ll point out your talking to someone who gre up in Canada where we had great healthcare instead of this lousy system we have here in the states where millions of people go without healthcare or suffer from undercare because we’ve let the greedy run it.
If Barak follows your worst fears, serious socialists would laugh at his lack of commitment to Karls dogma. Barak certainly is to the left of the neo facists who have run this country as of late (the ones listening to our phone calls and putting people, sans trial into detention on rumor) but he is not really a socialist. Have you lived in a real socialist country?
Honeslty, this list is just a knee-jerk list of grievances against a man whose varied ideological positions you dislike. That does not make him a socialist any more than I can brand McCain one for contributing to the recent corporate bail out.
“Most types of governments can violate individual rights – socialist, communist, capitalist…”
We’re having a problem defining terms here. Capitalism, by definition, violates no one’s rights. In fact, that would make an excellent dictionary entry; Capitalism—the complete and total recognition of, and protection of, property rights, i.e. the prohibition of coercion and fraud in human relationships.
Having any government involvement in an industry, if not socialist in totality, is certainly socialist (or Fascist) in nature. If your definition is so strict as to declare anything short of total confiscation as non-socialist, you’re missing the point.
G.W. Bush has passed some socialist legislation. The prescription drug program is one example. The recent “bailout” is another. There are many more. Are these 100% socialism? No. Are they “socialist” or “Fascist” in nature? Definitely. Yet the socialists call Bush a “Fascist” not for his actual Fascism, but for spying on international communications during a time of war (which has been done by every government in every war). They obviously don’t know what these words mean, or they’re in active denial.
If we’re to use the terms correctly, what we have in the U.S. and Canada is more akin to Fascism than to socialism (Mussolini, leader of the Fascisti, was a devout Marxist however, and the distinction, to me, is of little importance).
You can protest once, and it could be “too much” as it appears I’ve hit a nerve with you in my distinctions, hitting a little too close to home perhaps.
I use the term “socialist” broadly, I admit, but I can support that usage with historical facts. Any move toward government control, chipping away at the free market, is a move away from liberty, away from capitalism and toward socialism, or Fascism (or give it your own bloody name– I don’t care because it’s all the same crap, founded in the same assumption– that Man cannot be trusted to make his own decisions and live his lwn life). I’ve written about this many times, and it appears I will have to keep repeating myself for the rest of my life– many Americans have no idea what these terms mean, as I see them throwing the word “Fascism” about like it can mean anything at all, and then protesting when I correctly define some idea or other as socialist.
We capitalists know what socialism is, even if the socialists themselves are in denial about it.
1) We don’t have a draft anymore and I never approved of it when it was in existence. It is a logical result of the concept “the good of the many outweigh the good of the few” which I regard as a socialist philosophy.
2) To the best of my knowledge all socialist government have restricted firearms. There have been other types as well. But just because non-socialist government do it does not mean it’s not a characteristic of a socialist philosophy. Again it’s a logical result of the concept “the good of the many outweigh the good of the few” which I regard as a socialist philosophy.
3) You need to examine the people who Obama has associated with for decades and those that currently support him as well as his comments and the things he has voted for. He openly says taxes for the rich will go up under his plans. He wants to redistribute wealth.
4) Mandatory health care insurance with those that can’t afford it given subsidies isn’t socialistic? Forcing the individual to spend their money in a manner in which they otherwise would not have is a socialist act. The individual is not allowed the freedom do what they will with the product of their own work–the central committee has made that decision for them.