Conservatively speaking, the body count from socialism easily tops 100 million.

Posted by  $  Bobhummel 3 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
40 comments | Share | Flag

Sanders: The political system is rigged to favor well-heeled special interests. There is too much power in the hands of a few. Regular citizens seldom get a say in the distribution of spoils, and insiders clean up at the expense of the rest of us.

Mark Levin: I agree. Yes. Yes. And, yes. You have correctly analyzed the way our political system operates, and I wholeheartedly endorse your diagnosis of the problem. I, too, have been fighting against powerful insiders in Washington – their snouts in the public trough, their clutching hands on your wallet – the ones that have sought to disenfranchise citizens looking for more accountability and a fair shake from government.

So let’s give the Washington Machine more money, more control over our lives. Let’s concentrate power in the hands of an elite few and trust them to act in our best interests, to choose a better distribution of winners and losers.


Wait. What?
SOURCE URL: https://www.conservativereview.com/en/commentary/2016/02/socialism%20kills


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 2 months ago
    Socialism's body count STARTS at 100 million.
    Every time they prevail, those who helped them either shut up out of fear and shame, or whine, "But it wasn't supposed to turn out like this."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 2 months ago
    The socialist argument that man can't be trusted, but the government (made up of men) can is an oxymoron, or maybe it's just moronic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by handyman 3 years, 2 months ago
      I agree; it is moronic. But here is why (well, one of the reasons, anyway) people tend to believe this argument: It is government that is specifically chartered to create and execute polices for the public good. This being the case, how could it fail to achieve those lofty goals, at least most of the time and for most people. Not only that, but the people chartered with doing these great things are specifically trained to do them - eg. political science majors, public policy administrators, etc., ad nauseam. Governments and other organizations like charities are the only organizations with such a charter and staffed with people with these good intentions, so how could anything ever go wrong. Corporations generally don't have either of these attributes. So, in many people's minds, it quite reasonable to let government do it - "it" being most anything you can think of.

      I don't post that many things on here, but I hope you can tell I don't buy into this line of thinking myself. But many others (and they DO vote) do think this way.

      A question for other Gulchers is how can people who think along these lines be convinced otherwise?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 2 months ago
    This cannot be said often enough "Conservatively speaking, the body count from socialism easily tops 100 million. Think about that number as more than just an abstraction for a minute. The corpses of the victims of 20th Century socialist regimes, lined head to toe, one after the next, would circle the globe almost four times. 100,000,000 innocents murdered by bad political ideology, murdered because absolute power always corrupts absolutely."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 2 months ago
      I say: those absolutely corrupt are attracted to the temptations of power.

      The average man on the street are the elite, the value producer, the value creator...while those corrupted by money and power are simply the great unwashed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 2 months ago
    The "Black Book of Communism" documents 177 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. With another 30 million killed in wars, it shows the people's own governments are more dangerous than wars.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 2 months ago
    Absolutely, i just read in the local Grand Junction, Colorardo paper that the North Fork Valley is now operating one coal mine after the closing of the coal mine in Paonia was closed. These mines were owned by Kentucky based Bowie Resources Partners. From what I can surmise about 600 people are out of work.
    Then I read that Union Pacific Railroad has so far gotten rid of 4100 people in a 23 state area of the west because they aren't moving coal from Colorado as well as other coal mines in the west.They have idles 1500 locomotives, now in storage. We have probably 250 here in G.J.
    I do not care who of the republicans is elected that person will not turn things around because with the help of the republicans during his 2 terms as president 0 has accomplished so much destruction of the world economy by damaging the US economy that resurrecting it will be monumental. Those fools in the congress both rep and dem are as illiterate as any group on the planet. My estimate was 20 years before the complete crash and now i think that it will be sooner.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      Wiggys, your observation is spot on. Living on the east side of the front range, I would routinely see 200+ rail cars hauling Colorado coal to the power plants in the midwest on UniuonPacific tracks that paralleled I-70 on my drive to DIA. Now they are almost non existent. The fraud of global warming has destroyed numerous, formerly prosperous industries, all in the name of "the public good" but based on the phony science on socialism's useful idiot aiming their guns at free markets and capitalism.
      Cheers
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 2 months ago
      Add to what i said thus far in layoffs the fact that today I read that sports authority has filed chapter 11 and is closing 140 stores, so how many more will join the unemployment line. Of course they have an additional 323 stores to close. How many more mom and pop store will then close since they will not have customers since they their customers don't now have jobs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
    If you count all the residuals and co-laterals probably double. And those left off the list. Like the Silent Spring author. And as for those that include Nixon. Sorry ....That was Lyndon Butchers Johnson's war. He gets the body count credit or discredit. Left Wing, Socialist, fascist and above all a money grubbing corporatist statist.You start the war you get naming rights. Your name. WWI Wilson, WWII FDR, Korea- Truman, Vietnam LBJ, Bush I Kuwait, Clinton Kosovo, Bush II Iraq, The whole middle east conflict at present Obomba.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 2 months ago
    Our ship of state is already ruled by an elite propped up by a ship of fools, who keep multiplying like mindless vermin.
    Just look at so many young smiling faces beside held up signs like "FIGHTING FOR US" as if someone really cares.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
    We have an opportunity in Trump to expose this stuff. He will tell it like it is. No one else running for president will do that. This is why there are so many haters out there against Trump. The guy is far better than the Hildebeast, and has broad support across all the demographics. So many haters justs denigrate him for anything they can think of- making me distrust the haters for having hidden ulterior motives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
      I'm not so sure. He was pretty eager to self-identify as a socialist to MSNBC... See (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-sand...)

      Look at his policies. He's a fan of government-run healthcare, just not "Obamacare". He's a fan of government using eminent domain to take land for big casinos like his. He wants to raise taxes, because he knows he can afford the lawyers and accountants so he doesn't pay them. And he's gone through four major bankruptcies - not really the sign of a great businessman.

      Yes, he talks big on building the wall and the Second Amendment, but beyond that, he's empty rhetoric. He's more than happy to sling the mud but when it gets thrown at him, he complains.

      You're welcome to vote for the populist in Donald Trump. Just don't say you weren't warned when we get another Narcissist-in-Chief.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years, 2 months ago
        The reason I lean toward Trump (I'd rather have Cruz), is simply because of who is against him. I am not "for" him as much as i'm "against" THEM.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
          And that is precisely why he is so popular. Sanders is getting the same kind of push on the (D) side. The vast majority of Americans are sick of both the (D)'s and the (R)'s as they currently stand. People want an outsider.

          What I question, however, is when people want an outsider at all costs - without considering the policies espoused by the candidate. Mob rule is the downfall of democracy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 2 months ago
            We've been dealing with mob rule for years. Neither Trump nor Sanders is inventing this stuff. The vote for them is a shot across the bow of the Rs and Ds, letting them know that the populace will endure a pyrrhic victory, rather than let them continue their shenanigans. You can't act like they have for decades, then bemoan the lack of sanity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years, 2 months ago
            Trump's positions, noted on his website, have me in pretty good agreement. I would be more extreme in a number of areas, but his positions do not disqualify him from my list. His current weakness, for me, is his lack of attention to Constitutional issues, his lack of understanding about western lands in BLM control (I live in Wyoming) and his abrasive "kill my opponents" in the primaries.

            As to the "mob" issue, I don't see it that way. Yes, it is a "movement," but the mob mentality, at this point, is missing.

            Want to see a mob? Wait til it's Trump vs Hildebeast and SHE wins via voter fraud. THEN, the mob will arise.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
        eminent domain has been around a long time and was supported by the supreme court, so I kind of doubt thats going to come up in the next 4 years one way or another. Bankruptcies are built into the law, and he uses them like millions of other people do. Unlikely that there will be much change there in the next 4 years. If he stopped the war on drugs and stopped giving money to the non-citizens, and issues guest worker permits, there wouldnt be a need for the wall. Mexico has not stopped the cartel violence even in mexico itself, so maybe they should pay for a wall to keep their violence in mexico..
        Trump will be a much better foreign affairs administrator than others we have had, and much better than the other GOP or Demo candidates. He wont get us into useless wars that gain us nothing.
        The taxes he wants to raise are in a way to compensate for the freebie cash the federal reserve has printed and given to the wall street people.
        He will tell it like it is and hire good people to advise and work with him.
        He is not John Galt by any means, but we arent going to get a nice consistent objectivist in this culture at this time who would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. He is better than the evil Hildebeast or the evil (but honest) Sanders
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
          Eminent domain was supposed to be used only for public purposes, however. Trump lauds the Kelo v New London decision because it allows cronies and major donors to use the coercion of government to force real estate transactions in their favor. It is a recent decision, but one that should rub any advocate of property rights the wrong way.

          Yes, bankruptcies are built into the law, but these expose Trump's claims of being a great businessman. If he was so great, he wouldn't have lost over a billion $ in those bankruptcies and gotten ousted from the boards of many of them. Further, if you look at his list of successes in business, they are actually quite few. He's much better as an entertainer than a businessman.

          I actually support the completion of the wall. That law was actually passed several presidents ago and never actually finished. I agree with "The Donald" on the need to control illegal immigration. And I agree with you that the main problem is the drug cartels and violence in Mexico.

          With regard to foreign affairs, I have to question your assertion that Trump would be a boon to the US. He's an unknown. I could probably say with some confidence that he couldn't be as feckless as Obama or John Kerry, but I seriously doubt he would be Reagan or even GW Bush. Listen to his policies around the Middle East for instance: the guy is just clueless. Might he actually put a good Sec State in? Sure. But it's a complete unknown.

          "The taxes he wants to raise are in a way to compensate..."
          The needed course is a reduction in SPENDING. Raising taxes provides only marginal revenue and in our current state, would likely send our economy into full-blown recession. It's a huge mistake that to me demonstrates his lack of fundamental understanding of economics. Of course, that's pretty par for the course with elected officials in general.

          'He will tell it like it is and hire good people to advise and work with him."
          He probably better start with a new campaign adviser then. He got roasted in the last two debates because he's getting pushed on real policy decisions. And hiring good people and advisers only works if you actually listen to them. Narcissists tend to want to go things their way.

          Would "The Donald" be better than Hillary? Yes. Better than Sanders? I don't know. Sanders is a feckless old man with little force of character - which both Trump and Clinton have in spades. Sanders doesn't have the cache to browbeat the Republicans like Obama, so I doubt that he would be very effective as President. But the real question is would Trump be better than Cruz or Rubio. A definite no regarding the former and only a maybe regarding the latter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
            Eminent domain under the Constitution was supposed to be used only for "public use", not "public purposes", and then only for the very limited functions of government property prescribed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court expanded "use" to "purposes". That was the excuse in the Kelo decision that Trump likes so much. Under fascism, private development is mingled with government and declared to be a "public purpose".

            Until the beginning of the Progressive era near the end of the 19th century, eminent domain was only rarely imposed by the Federal government (in contrast to the states). Since then it has become a nightmare at all levels of government, with the Supreme Court expanding the power under the Constitution in accordance with statist desires.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
            As to the bankruptcies, I would note that we had a pretty bad recession which resulted in LOTS of bankruptcies involving real estate- not to mention the investment banking firms that went under. BK isnt great, but business does have risks, unlike politics which just seems to cover over its mistakes and no one cares.

            Spending is the problem of course. But I doubt any of the candidates are going to be able to actually reduce it in the next 4 years. Hildebeast and Sanders would radically increase spending most likely.

            Foreign affairs. I think Trump's style would get us more respect internationally. Obama/Kerry/Clinton just resulted in less respect. Respect reduces the chances of accidental war, and would keep us out of useless wars like we seem to get into all the time- with no clear objectives or even a way to pay for them.

            Trump has been under constant attack from all sides because he is an outsider and threatens the status quo. He gets hammered all the time and its hard to stand up there and defend yourself constantly. An example is Rubio and Cruz, who were so annoying in the last debate making claims and not even giving Trump a chance to respond.
            Rubio is a bit slick for me. He just talks, but I really doubt there is anything there that he really has done. Cruz is a religious zealot, better than Hildebeast, but I doubt he would be good at foreign relations or convincing anyone of anything.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
              "An example is Rubio and Cruz, who were so annoying in the last debate making claims and not even giving Trump a chance to respond."

              Uh, even the Washington Examiner showed that Trump had more than ten minutes more talking time than any other candidate (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/who.... He spoke for 30 minutes and his next closest competitor only 20. If he's not using that time effectively, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. And the moderators more than covered for Trump several times when Cruz came after him, so I'm not buying the sympathy argument either.

              (I listened to Hannity the other day and his campaign spokesman was an effective mirror of Trump: he monopolized the airtime and filled it with mostly empty accusations about the other candidates instead of definite actions Trump would take. Even Sean got tired of it and he's a closet Trump supporter.)

              What struck me in the last two debates was that Trump was mostly hot air. I'm not a fan of Rubio, but he had some really effective zingers when Trump attempted to deflect, like in the Trump University and the "statute of limitations on lies" comments. When asked what he would do to fix healthcare, he again got zinged because he repeated the same thing five times and had no new ideas to add. (Of course, that's probably because healthcare is a position on which "The Donald" is progressive.)

              Trump was ill-prepared for the last two debates and it showed. He needs to be able to articulate policy instead of wasting his time calling his opponents liars. Rubio is an easy mark for his Gang-of-Eight participation and it plays well into Trump's immigration policy. He should be hammering that point. But in order to do that, he has to know his own policy statements backwards, forwards, and inside out. They should be a part of him - not just words on his website. He should be able to call up the statistics that support his position and show that his opponents' attacks are empty. His other major liability is that he has no political history to call on as evidence of his positions. What political legacy he has is limited to campaign contributions - mostly to Democrats. Both Rubio but especially Cruz can point to their histories of action and results.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
                Rubio was very annoying. He would throw something out and then throw something else out, and then something else out. Its not a debate, but both Cruz and Robio were just trying to make Trump look bad any way they could. It was annoying and a waste of time.
                I am not sure at all that the "debates" were more than opportunities for the media to sell ads. They told me nothing I didnt already know- both for the democrats and repubs.
                The more people pick on Trump, the more I want him in there, because its usually hidden agendas that cause people to hate one or another. Trump takes no contributions, which none of the other candidates can claim, so he isnt beholden to special interests. THAT is one of the big advantages of Trump.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                  I am pretty sure mr. Trump does take contributions from individual donors but not the bundle types that try and attach strings. The organized parties created this all by being unresponsive to the electorate. The Bernie types want more redistribution of other's wealth created though the abilities. The RNC has ignored the desires of the electorate who gave them landslide victories in the past 3 congressional elections and in most of the state elections. So now we have a revolt against the donor class and the cronies capitalism recipients on those donoation.
                  Cheers
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
                  It's only annoying if you're a Trump fan. I seriously laughed out loud about Rubio's comment about how "The Donald" can't sweat because his pores are full of tanning spray. It reminded me of John Boehner, John Kerry, and the rest of the spray-painted idiots in Washington.

                  As to the quality of the debates, I'd love to see a more Lincoln-Douglas style of debate, but that really only works with two candidates. So that means that any other style of debate is going to come with its deficiencies. Whether it is partisan moderators (one of the weightier crimes), softball questions, targeted questions, or whatever, there's always plenty to gripe about. A savvy debater will simply just shift to the topics that matter.

                  As to being beholden to special interests, "The Donald" isn't nearly as immune as you might think. He's currently $540 MILLION in hock to the big banks. That's a pretty hefty "special interest" in my book. And to be realistic, EVERYONE has a special interest in something. The real question is what that interest is. Would you be opposed if someone was receiving millions of dollars from a Ragnar or Midas Mulligan? You see, it's a false argument. All the donors tell you is what kinds of policies that person is going to favor. If you want to brag about Donald Trump being his own donor, all you're really saying is that Donald Trump's first interest is his own: not necessarily a bad thing, but not nearly the coup d' grace it is proposed as.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
          Eminent domain "comes up" all the time in the drive for Federal acquisition to expand parks and wilderness at the expense of private property owners. The degree to which it is imposed depends on the money they have and who is running the Interior Dept. The last thing we need in the White House is a demagogue who openly proclaims that "eminent domain is wonderful" and Federal lands are "magnificent". Stop trying to dismiss this as irrelevant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
            We dont own our land and homes at this point anyway. I am allowed to "buy" it, build on it, and have to maintain it, BUT I dont own it in the strict sense anymore. Stop paying asset tax on the building and you lose the whole thing. Dont get a building permit and they tear it down
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo