44 Replies to “Great Moments In Socialism”

  2. Bernie had a Congressional responsibility for VETERAN AFFAIRS… The Kick-backs from Crony administration wait times (Bernie saving’s) really add up….
    Bernie will trade up for a Beach HUT in Cuba…One step at a time

  3. It’s always the same with the socialist elite – socialism is good for thee, but not for me.

  4. Remember the phrase from “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

  5. Did you mean,”not bad for an actor who played his role very well in the DNC’s little fiction”?
    Sanders had NO chance from day one, none,nada, nyetchka, not a hope, not a chance, not a sausage, bugger all. Anyone who actually believes he did should take some lessons in cynicism.
    That the commie sonofabitch says one thing and does the other is the earmark of the true socialist,the rest is just rhetoric for the useful idiots.
    Take a page from one of your fellow communists.Bernie,and go get a massage from a 13 year old Asian hooker,hopefully the excitement will be too much for your lying heart.

  6. Hillary made him an offer he couldn’t refuse,
    millions for his support or a bullet through his brain.
    He made a great choice.
    I would have jerked that check out of her hand so fast she would have gotten a paper cut.
    –
    (captcha…) Self – Service… LOL

  8. My dear sister sent him 30 dollars and still thinks Hillary will be removed by the DNC, and Bernie will be president.
    Its my sister, so I won’t describe to you how stupid that is..

  9. What exactly is the problem here? It’s not like he used his supporters’ campaign donations to pay for the house.
    Bernie’s brand of socialism doesn’t preclude either private property rights or having nice things in life, despite what you might think, or want to believe, or obstinately insist to be the case even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It just means not forgetting that there are others less fortunate or insisting that one’s earned everything entirely on one’s own.
    Which is why the hypocrisy charge falls flat — he’d be the first to admit his privilege, and the first in line to vote for raising taxes on himself and others in his income bracket to ensure he pays his fair share back into society.

  10. That BErnie smile, not sure how to describe it, like “the cat that swallowed the canary” like “a ripple on a slop pail”, or just like a dirty old man”…..take your pick.

  12. I take issue with your apparent definition of property rights. Individuals have a natural right to not be harmed or their property taken from them against their will. That includes their money and other goods, not just land. Bernie sought to increase taxes and thus to take more property from citizens.
    Besides, given the confiscatory regime he espoused, how long before government, indirectly through taxation, or directly seized (Zimbabwe anyone) real property? Look at European banks pilfering savings and hawking negative yield bonds for a hint into the future with socialism.
    The progressives were supposed to carry the burden of why proving this or that government program, and removal of liberty, was justified. Now the libertarians have the burden. Kind of like climate change, make a theory, never try to disprove it, declare yourselves on the side of science and intellect, then slime or ruin any attempt at disproof. Too bad temperatures didn’t follow the narrative, but none of that really matters, because facts don’t matter.
    The muddled medium is the mendacious message.

  13. “I take issue with your apparent definition of property rights. Individuals have a natural right to not be harmed or their property taken from them against their will. That includes their money and other goods, not just land. Bernie sought to increase taxes and thus to take more property from citizens.”
    Just to be clear, are you defining any and all taxation as a prima facie violation of individual property rights? Sounds like it — if “increasing taxes” = “taking more property from citizens”, then by that logic, “current taxes” = “taking property from citizens”. But please clarify if I’m misinterpreting you.
    For the record, my first comment was referring to owning more than one house. The implication of the linked article seemed to be that Bernie was somehow a hypocrite for (B) advocating for a socialist political agenda while (B) owning more than one house. The fact is, (A) needn’t preclude (B).

  14. “not forgetting that there are others less fortunate”
    Please feel free to reach for your wallet and help them out. If there are no income taxes you would be in a much better position to assist them.
    Whatever you spend in the name of God, you will receive back ten-fold.

  15. Even as a teenager I got it when someone told me about the commie elite apparatchiks and their dachas.
    This is just DACHA, REDUX.
    Around the same time the son of a CBC on air personality told me that his father had opined that “deep in the heart of every socialist is the desire to own a Mercedes Benz.”
    Another English friend pointed out to me that in the UK, most Labour scandals concerned money whereas most conservarive scandals involve sex.
    I believe Your Token Liberal is doing satire here.
    Evidently Bernie’s new dacha cost his whole net worth.
    He has 3 homes I gather.

  16. he’d be the first to admit his privilege, and the first in line to vote for raising taxes on himself and others in his income bracket to ensure he pays his fair share back into society.
    What, he doesn’t have the self-discipline to voluntarily pay more taxes? Put his money where his mouth is…? When he sets the example, I might believe him…

  17. Yes, taking of property without consent, even taxes, without consent is an abrogation of natural rights with the burden of proof of necessity on government, not the citizen to prove it’s not needed or wanted. That standard is long gone.
    Perhaps if one realizes progressivism began it’s march in the US around 1900, we can see the long path of steady erosion of liberty towards coercion.
    Instead every new program is a birthright for the nation, that only fascists would oppose, and governments’ job creation numbers never include the extinguished jobs, so they can give to the favoured few and take from the many, a little skim at a time, while claiming they’re doing the opposite.
    One argument for progressivism is that voters give “consent” to be taxed more. Democracy and liberty aren’t always the same thing though, besides the individual cannot be viewed as a collective under natural law, so my vote against taxation obviates any consent on my part.
    The government owns the ultimate sanction, your freedom and your property, to coerce compliance to their fees, licensing and taxation.
    Aka, the exact opposite of liberty, peace and order.
    The point here is governments make light of their responsibilities to prove to the taxpayer, to their individual agreements, they can take some of their property for public uses. This fails no matter their reasoning or justification. Removing resources from productive factors to give to unproductive (welfare) is always a transaction of decline, no matter the SJW impulses, and done enough times results in overall economic decline, the poor always bearing the brunt. It’s simple math but progressives have no need for proofs, just beliefs, with its irony and their hypocrisy of no concern.
    Fair enough on your second comment; yes socialists will let you keep your house until that becomes inconvenient for them. After all “you didn’t build that.”
    Even if statists were efficient at allocating resources, they shouldn’t have the right to unilaterally take our property; actually they’re corrupt & incompetent.

  18. “All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for.”
    – Logan Pearsall Smith

  19. They might have to hire a excorsist theres a defenetly a evil spirit coming to thje place

  22. Who was US R politician who made a habit of inviting his commie opponents to cut a extra cheque to the IRS and got no takers? Cheney?

  23. You seem unawares that Bernie and the lefty/socialist cabal impose ideology by force of law, and that is not democracy. Churches may be stupid with their insistence of enabling the lazy, but at least their do so voluntarily, so TL, feel free to donate all your extra $$$$ to a church of your choice.

  24. From the article …. how many preach about the evil one percent not paying their fair share,….
    Funny you should ask.
    Your agent know exactly the person that fits the description. Have to constantly argue with her that bein rich is nor an offence.
    She, herself is rather well off, compared to your agent anyway.
    Got 2 houses in the city, one in coal mine town in BC and one in Mexico by the well known lake.
    Laments constantly that the rich should give and give and give, herself of course not.
    It’s what socialists do.

  25. I have never met a scocialist who did not think they were entitled to more or expected to pay more or give anything up.And I have met some relatively rich ones.

  26. “You seem unawares that Bernie and the lefty/socialist cabal impose ideology by force of law, and that is not democracy.”
    You seem unawares that Bernie ran as a candidate in a free election and conceded the nomination to his opponent when the time came, rather than seizing the Democratic ticket and the White House in an armed coup, and that is in fact democracy.
    Furthermore, you seem unawares that “the lefty/socialist cabal” — by which I presume you mean the Obama/Trudeau/Wynne/Notley/Fill-In-The-Blank-Since-To-You-They’re-All-The-Same governments — each were elected by a plurality of their fellow citizens in free and open elections, and so for the duration of their respective terms in office may legitimately claim a mandate — and indeed, an ethical obligation — to enact laws that are consistent with their previously disclosed “lefty/socialist” political agendas, and that is in fact also democracy.

  27. …each were elected by a plurality of their fellow citizens in free and open elections…
    You seem to be unaware that, in the cases of Nutley, Wynne, and Trudope, they were elected by a minority. More voted against them than for them, as has been the case for years. How is that majority rule?
    The party system is more about divide and conquer, than anything else.

  29. hitler was also “voted”in, and then by force of his law imposed his will on the people. T’is funny when I’v talked to some lieberals, how they were surprised that the ones they voted for (wynnebag) imposed stupid laws and regulations. Yes TL, lefties use rule of law to impose their agenda, much more so than centrists and cons. Read some bludy history.

  30. Never knew a socialist whose cause couldn’t be privately bought. In the end it’s the rats nearest to the life boat that survive the sinking ship.

  31. “You seem to be unaware that, in the cases of Nutley, Wynne, and Trudope, they were elected by a minority. More voted against them than for them, as has been the case for years. How is that majority rule?”
    It’s not, which is why I wrote “a plurality of their fellow citizens.”

  32. “hitler was also “voted”in, and then by force of his law imposed his will on the people.”
    And when Obama/Trudeau/Wynne/Notley/Fill-In-The-Blank-Since-To-You-They’re-All-The-Same pass their own version of the March 1933 Ermächtigungsgesetz, then you might have a point.
    Until then, Godwin’s Law, etc.

  33. “You seem to be unaware that, in the cases of Nutley, Wynne, and Trudope, they were elected by a minority. More voted against them than for them, as has been the case for years. How is that majority rule?”
    It is majority rule for the simple reason that their respective parties won a majority of the seats in their respective legislatures.

  34. Bernie has always been open and honest about being a socialist as opposed to the Obama / Clinton dueling fabricators competition. What bothers me about these career politicians doing so well is the theft-pimping, vote-buying, inherent conflict of interest of incumbency nature of the criminal enterprise. Two words for all of them, Term Limits. That goes for the Supreme Courts as well.
    Good comment Rizwan.

  35. It’s not, which is why I wrote “a plurality of their fellow citizens.”
    Well, except for the plurality of citizens who voted against them.

  36. It doesn’t matter on what platform Bernie ran … he tossed his lot in with Hillary … told all his followers to vote for HER … and GOT PAID for it. I want to see the money trail for this new home purchase …
    I expect that good ol Bernie’s cash flow is going to put him in deep into the 1% in the coming years. Just the way Socialists roll. Never hold a REAL job … but end up with a crapload of other people’s $$$$

  37. Which is why the hypocrisy charge falls flat…
    Right. A guy who didn’t have a job till he was 40, and never had a job other than an elected position, who thinks bread lines are good and more than one brand of deodorant or sneakers are too many, has a house in DC, one in Vermont, and now a third house – for seasonal use only.
    Yeah, no hypocrisy there.

  38. I have NEVER been a fan of term limits … however … we need to REGULARLY impeach politicians and judges for ignoring the Constitution. Who cares about SEX scandals … we need to IMPEACH judges and US Presidents who trample and burn the Constitution … or twist it into a unrecognizabe wad of useless paper. MORE IMPEACHMENTS NOWwwwww !!!

  39. ah TL, try looking up “democracy”, forcing ones own agenda is not part of that definition. Obungles has done a great job of forcing his adgenda, and so would Hillery. One thing I can say for Harper, he governed from the middle, which is were every elected official should govern from, unless they have over 90% of the vote. Harper also didn’t preach, tho he was a religious man. That was another thing I respected about him. The likes of Bush & Obungles pushed agendas. Elected officials are servants of the people, try grasping that concept, and stuff your lefty bullsh*t.

  40. “I have NEVER been a fan of term limits … “
    I am very, VERY much in favour.
    Radically so.
    ONE term. And possiblly zero terms for other immediate family members.
    If you ever want to see true citizen representation and a reduction in the rampant corruption that accompanies multiple terms, term limits (one!) are essential. We need to dispense with the notion of “professional” career politicians.
    I know what you’re thinking. You can’t get much done is a single term.
    True. I rest my case.

  41. “Please feel free to reach for your wallet and help them out.”
    And rest assured that I do. But by the by, your statement is actually precisely why relying on private charity to sustain social welfare is a flawed policy — it’s uncertain and thus unreliable, especially when it’s most needed (e.g., during economic recessions).
    Don’t get me wrong, private charity has an important place among society’s roster of support mechanisms for its members in need. But in any advanced society, progressive taxation is a much fairer and more stable primary means of financing the common social safety net and other public goods for all.

  42. How about a shark just opening up for a good bite of someone’s leg? Not a nice person.

  44. Exactly! Under communism the apparatchiks are always more equal than the proletariat, even as the apparatchiks mouth their lies.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation