Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba’s health care system, “You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met.” W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, “Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. … But also — and this was the highest proof of his greatness — he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.” Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man.” George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.
John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao’s China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that “the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action,” and that Yenan itself constituted “a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere.” Michel Oksenberg, President Carter’s China expert, complained that “America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values,” and urged us to “borrow ideas and solutions” from China.
Even Harvard’s late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.” Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China’s Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the ’60s and ’70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao’s little red book, “Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung.” Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today’s universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.
The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii’s Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, “Death by Government.” Statistics are provided at his website: (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html). The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
Today’s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there’s little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for “social justice.” It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today’s Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.
Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation’s elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement “social justice.” Those tools are massive centralized government power. It just turns out last century’s notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn’t over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.
If Americans fail to thwart this socialist ruination of their nation, then they deserve nothing but the worst judgements of history. To willfully condemn their children and grandchildren to a return to the world of chains and tyranny is the lowest form of evil imaginable.
America's politicians deserve nothing but scorn, derision and ridicule for bringing the wealthiest nation in the world to absolute bankruptcy. The American people are shamed and disgraced for allowing it. God have mercy on us all.
And now, in addition to Naziism and Communism, we have radical Islam to worry about too.
Interesting quotation from the “Harvard scholar”, John K. Fairbank: “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.”
What is “personal moral concern” in a collective society? Concern that ones neighbors may have strayed from the shining path defined by their supposedly moral betters — the collectivist elitists? Is this when you inform the authorities that your neighbor has been a “reactionary backslider” and inform them so the individual may be taken away to be “re-educated”?
How did these swine enter the groves of academia?
American constitutional government is hard. It is a prospect only to be contemplated by adults. Those who wish to linger in childhood and not face the frightening prospects of being a “grown-up” willingly suspend disbelief of the improbable lies the politicians of all stripes deliver. Until we as a people face up to the difficult prospects required to rule ourselves, we will be subjegated to the whimsy of politicains who seek self agrandizement over all. Unfortunately, what may lead to that is a taste of what others have suffered under for decades.
Having seen the cost first hand, I weep.
Why draw any distinction at all? It's like monster A eats people M-F and again on Sat from 7-3 and monster B eats people M-F and on Sat from 6-11AM and Sun from 1-2:30PM. They are the both monsters! Do we have to find out which is the kindest? National Socialism was independent of International Socialism, or in other words, independent of Moscow and the bureacracy. In neither case could you live like a human being was meant to live. But the article above points out that some of our world's brainiest people couldn't avoid being taken in by an illusion of greatness. Our nation works best when it creates an optimal environment for people to flourish not when it tries to corral people into a constrictive set of rules.
From Dictatorships and Double Standards Redux:
Ironically, this is the point when one perceives that the much- vilified “Stalin-Hitler equivalency” is only a euphemism for a more-feared equation. The connection that [John R.] MacArthur and all the other “naive liberals” evade is not between the dictators Hitler and Stalin, but between the theorists Hitler and Marx. What they ultimately dread is not the notion that “Stalin was as bad as Hitler” in practice, but that Marxism is as evil as Hitlerism in principle. For what was Nazism ever other than Marxism in which class consciousness was replaced with racial nationalism? Is a determinist doctrine of classism and class warfare less repugnant than one of racism and racial warfare? Is it less evil in principle; is it less evil in practice? To affirm the first part of that last question is to affirm the second — as exemplified by MacArthur's morally grotesque distinction between “[s]tarving masses of people to death in Ukraine” and “gassing Jews en masse.” One last link to ponder: In the first months of 1849, Marx published Engels' series of pieces for the Neue Rheinesche Zeitung in which he hailed the “bloody” liquidation of different European ethnic groups in a “world war” that would “result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples.” In 1924, references to these articles appeared in Stalin's Foundations of Leninism. It is this necessity of genocide to the collectivist struggle, the jihad of an Us vs. Them hate theology, that is the lesson Marx taught Stalin — who in turn taught Hitler.
The conservative estimate of the number of people killed by communists is 100 million, or four times the number estimated to have been killed by Nazism. Yet 50 years after the destruction of Nazism, Americans still are regaled with its horrors while the worst horrors of communism are ignored. Worse yet, American leftists and amoral businessmen are still trying to paint a human face on the communist monster.
Both systems killed people not because of what they had done but because of who they were. The Nazis killed people by race; the communists, by class. Furthermore, the authors dispel the myth that the horrors of communism were the result of good communism gone bad or some particular person betraying communism. Communism is, in and of itself, a criminal enterprise in which the modus operandi is terror, repression and homicide.
This is shown consistently in every regime from the Soviet Union to China to Vietnam to North Korea to Cuba and to other countries where communists gained a foothold. Unlike the Nazis, the communist killers benefited from the propaganda of their comrades and fellow travelers living in the democracies. And still do. These unrepentant communists are a cancer in every free country where they live.
By coincidence I recently talked with a professional woman who had the opportunity to live in Cuba with some Cuban professionals. She described herself as a liberal Democrat. She described her experience of the reality of Cuba as “horrendous.” Though not a Cuban, she came back convinced that it would be a crime for the United States to force Elian Gonzalez, the little boy rescued from the sea, to return to Cuba.
“It would be exactly the same thing as returning a Jewish boy to Nazi Germany,” she said. She wishes to remain anonymous to protect her Cuban hosts from reprisals. If you will read the section in the Black Book on Cuba, you will agree with her. It is a hideously criminal regime that spies on and controls every aspect of people's lives. It is fueled by hatred. It is supported by repression, censorship, propaganda and killing.
Americans should be wary of believing that communism is a dead issue. It thrives in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and China. Because of President Clinton's incredible blundering, the Russian Federation has renewed its interest in and support of Cuba. It is financing a nuclear power plant. It maintains its large intelligence-gathering stations in Cuba. There is no question that if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ever put nuclear weapons into Poland, Russian nukes would show up in Cuba. The war with communism won't be over until the last fat commissar sings his death song.
Col. Stanislav Lunev, a defector, recently wrote, “Normalization — i.e., accommodation of Castro despotism — means big bucks for profit-hungry businessmen in the short term but would seriously weaken the United States in the long run. In the latter case no one wins for no one will prosper in the second rate, subjugated America that will be the final result.”
Americans are vulnerable to subjugation because they are so naïve. Remember, mass murderers and wannabe mass murderers are still among us on this planet.
I'm confused by the first two sentences of the last paragraph.
Are you trying to say that Americans in general will turn away
from the Constitution and let the “elite transform the country?
Seems like the Tea Parties and other massive protests
would disagree with you.
Everyone should keep in mind that these horrific regimes got their start in the universities of their respective countries. These are all “intellectual” movements. I put that in quotes because the ideas espoused from these movements are inheritly barbarous. Any time collectivism is seen as an ideal, we are not dealing with people who respect the autonomy of the individual. The elites want slaves akin to Plato's Republic.
“…the nation’s elite, … believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us…”
****************
That's the essence of their madness – a lethal blend of arrogance with a denial of man's innate need for, and entitlement to, liberty. They are the wimpy little suck-ups who got beat up on their way home from school and are now getting even.
It is a tribute to “true moronism” the rwm (right wing moron) crowd, continues to equate communism, socialism, nazism, fascism, et al. The fact that they may be mutually exclusive would never enter the discussion.
Why?
Because Glenn Beck and the rest of the fascist swine at fux “news” told you to.
When it comes to unthinking, rabid moron worship, you can't beat the sycophants of the right wing.
The very people that are being screwed by the policies of the retardlican fascist party, are their most rabid supporters.
It's like placing a shiny object in front of a retard. They'll stare at it and go “ooooooo”.
It's like asking a toddler to choose between a 5 shiny pennies and a paper dollar. They'll generally choose the pennies because that are intellectually incapable understanding the concepts inolved.
Let present a fable, so that even you can understand.
6,500 years ago, when the really big magic man created the earth (which is the center of the universe), he made many, many, many morons. He called them right wing morons. Initally, they would simply bang their heads against the wall and complain that they had head-aches. Eventually, they joined the retardlican fascist party. This enabled them to do many more things that could cause them pain and anguish. The big cheese retardlicans would use them as fodder to make sure they got their way. Then they would pat the right wing morons on the head, and say “now you can hit your heads with a balpeen hammer”.
The right wing morons would be so happy, they would pee their pants.
THE END
Excellant comment and if we didn't have the internet to subvert this shameful attempt by our representative to enslave us, the transmitting tower of Fox News would be silent, today.
I think we all have enough and hopefully, turn the traitors out in the coming elections. Before then, the test will be to follow the legal means to do this as our resolve will certainly be tested by a machine we let get out of control.
I am reminded of attending grade school and having to raise my hand to ask a question and being told to shut up because I was the only one who knew the answer.
How in the HELL did so many incredibly stupid people get to be in such a position of power in this country? I'd really like to know.
More importantly, why do so many people not only VOTE against their own personal interests, and the interests of their neighbors, but also advocate for positions that apparently run counter to their stated belief system. And why are people whose lives are obviously more messed up than those whom they are lecturing, constantly hawk their self-righteous bullshit to the rest of us with regard to ethics and morals? I've always believed you clean out your own barn before you start talking about the stench of someone else's.
And here's the ultimate question; why do they always seem to get a forum that is equal to everyone else, and why doesn't anyone call them on their rhetoric?
Now, if you listen to a right winger, wherever they live is a goddamn paradise, where everyone lives a chaste, moral, Biblical life, and everyone who lives in a “liberal” state might as well be living in a jungle. Right wingers, of course, are all moral, peaceful and God-fearing, while we liberals are all heathenous retches who kill babies and coddle terrorists.
Of course, we know they're delusional. And yet, no matter how delusional they are, the press gives them a soapbox, where they will get to say whatever they want, and no one will ever call them on it.
And there's a lot to call them on. Have you ever bothered to look at the relative safety, security and economic stability of the red states versus the blue states? Well, I have. When you compare the red states with the blue states, you end up with proof that right wingers are delusional about their heroes, and are ultimately not worthy of any respect.
By almost every measure, the Republican leadership has let their own base down, and apparently, their “base” is just too stupid to notice. And I apologize in advance to the Democrats in these states; I know there are a lot of you, and you hate having others point this out to you, but now you can print this and hand it out to the redneck across the street the next time he tells you what a great man George W. Bush was, and what a socialist Barack Obama is. By most measures, his state is among the worst in the country.
Another note; in the statistics below, I left Washington, DC out of the mix on purpose. It's not a state, the city is largely run by Congress, and its population for most of the day is mostly transient, which tends to skew per capita figures to a very great degree. Plus, some measurements included them others didn't.
Let's start this with some basic economics.
Here's a list of the ten states with the highest median incomes: 1. Maryland, 2. New Jersey, 3. Connecticut, 4. Alaska, 5. Hawaii, 6. New Hampshire, 7. Massachusetts, 8. California, 9. Virginia, 10. Minnesota.
Notice something about the above? Except for Alaska, whose numbers are skewed because of their socialist economy, in which oil companies pay their taxes for them, and pay them extra for living in Alaska, all of them are blue, or at least a bluish purple, in the case of New Hampshire.
Just as interesting are the BOTTOM ten states; 50. Mississippi, 49. West Virginia, 48. Arkansas, 47. Kentucky, 46. Alabama, 45. Louisiana, 44. New Mexico, 43. Oklahoma, 42. Tennessee, 41. South Carolina.
Notice something about that list? Yeah, except for the purplish New Mexico and West Virginia, they're all pretty reliably red.
The above statistics have been pretty much static for the last 40 years; the groupings haven't changed much. And the poverty levels back that up. The ten states with the highest number of residents living below the poverty line are: 1. Mississippi, 21.6%, 2. Louisiana, 19.4%, 3. New Mexico, 19.3%, 4. Arkansas, 17.9%, 5. West Virginia, 17.9%, 6. Kentucky, 17.4%, 7. Texas, 16.6%, 8. Alabama, 16.1%, 9. South Carolina, 15.7%, 10. Oklahoma, 15.3%. It’s roughly the same group of states, and pretty much all Red.
Again; why are these people are telling us how to put people to work, and increase tax revenues? Why are they even given a forum to complain about what “liberals” and Democrats do to the economy? They're running the poorest states in the country, and they won't be satisfied until they've done the same thing for everyone else.
So why is it, no matter how many times the Republican “base” votes for their Republican heroes, and nothing changes, they continue to support them? Oh, wait; the answers are below. I just haven't gotten to them yet. The Republican base doesn't simply occupy the bottom, economically speaking. No, there is lots more to look at.
You know how they're always posturing themselves as being “tough on crime”? They always brag, because they throw a lot more people in jail, and execute far more criminals than blue states. And they swear that such measures make everyone safer. But I dare anyone to prove it based on statistics.
The ten states with the highest violent crime rate are, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics for 2006. 1. South Carolina, 2. Tennessee, 3. Nevada, 4. Florida, 5. Louisiana, 6. Alaska, 7. Delaware, 8. Maryland, 9. New Mexico, 10. Michigan.
Yes, you read that right. The states with the highest violent crime rate are mostly RED, not blue. Seven of the top ten are run by Republicans. If we dig down to the top 15, the only blue states added would be Illinois and California, which are purple, at best. That's right, folks; ten of the 15 states with the highest violent crime rates in the country are mostly run by Republicans. Their violent crime rates are far higher than New York, far higher than New Jersey, and a whole lot higher than that bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts.
Nineteen states have crime rates higher than the US average, and only five are blue. As a subset of violent crimes, murder rates follow the same pattern; 1. South Carolina, 2. Florida, 3. Maryland, 4. Tennessee, 5. New Mexico, 6. Louisiana, 7. Alaska, 8. Nevada, 9. Delaware, 10. California.
And they love the gun in those red states, don't they? They will swear with their dying breath that the gun protects them. But check out the ten states with the highest firearm death rate (by now, you should be able to guess most of them); 1. Alaska, 2. Louisiana, 3. Wyoming, 4. Arizona, 5. Nevada, 6. Mississippi, 7. New Mexico, 8. Arkansas, 9. Alabama, 10. Tennessee.
Just for giggles, check out the states with the LOWEST firearm death rate, mainly because some will surprise you. 50. Hawaii, 49. Massachusetts, 48. Connecticut, 47. New Jersey, 46. New York, 45. Rhode Island, 44 New Hampshire, 43. Minnesota, 42. Maine, 41. Iowa.
Yes, you read that right. You have a far greater chance of being shot and killed in Caribou Barbie's Alaska than in New York or New Jersey. Doesn't it seem strange that the states with the most guns also see the most crime? If the mere presence of firearms makes everyone safer, as the right wing loons claim, then perhaps they can explain why your odds of being shot and killed are greater in the states with more guns? It's that cognitive dissonance, folks; they can't help themselves.
Perhaps their cognitive dissonance is because of their lack of education. I know it's hard to believe, but despite their efforts to force us to run schools their way, they don't have a very good track record.
Let's start with the ten states with the highest graduation rates: 1. New Jersey, 2. North Dakota, 3. Iowa, 4. Vermont, 5. Wisconsin, 6. Connecticut, 7. Pennsylvania, 8. Minnesota, 9. Idaho, 10. Nebraska.
Now, a couple of red ones popped up in there, mostly in red states where there really isn't anything to do if you drop out of high school. I mean, what does a teenager do in North Dakota, Idaho or Nebraska if they aren't going to school? Yet, seven of the top ten states are reliably red. Now, check out the bottom ten. Again, you can almost guess who most of them are. 50. South Carolina, 49. Nevada, 48. Georgia, 47. New Mexico, 46. Florida, 45, Louisiana, 44. Delaware, 43. Alabama, 42. Mississippi and 41. Tennessee.
Again, most of the above states have been dominated by Republicans over the years.
And have you noticed how right wing Republicans are always on about how moral they are compared to us? I mean to hear them tell it, we progressives are depraved, and they're all as pure as the driven snow. They scoff at us “lib'rulls” and our so-called “lifestyles,” and they're so worried that same-sex couples might actually get married and ruin theirs, you would think they valued marriage as a “sacred tradition.” Well, think again. The ten states with the highest divorce rates are as follows; 1. Nevada, 2. Arkansas, 3. Alaska, 4. Oklahoma, 5. Wyoming, 6. West Virginia, 7. Alabama, 8. Idaho, 9. Florida, 10. Tennessee.
In all fairness, we should probably leave Nevada off the above list, because tacky people from all over the country get divorced there. but all of the others are reliably red.
What about teen pregnancy? Surely, with so many right wingers teaching all that “abstinence-only” education, their girls chaste and virtuous, right? Well, you tell me; here are the ten states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy; 1. Nevada, 2. Arizona, 3. Mississippi, 4. New Mexico, 5. Texas, 6. Florida, 7. California, 8. Georgia, 9. North Carolina, 10. Arkansas. Once again, except for California, all of pretty reliably red over the years.
It's pretty clear that the right wing Republicans' track record regarding their pet issues is pretty poor. But it gets even better.
Have you noticed how the greatest whining about health care reform has been coming from Republican lawmakers from red states? One would think that the states with the largest numbers of uninsured would be most in favor of creating a national health insurance system, right?
Not when one major party is dominated by hypocrites.
You can probably guess which states have the HIGHEST number of uninsured citizens. These numbers are based on a two-year average for 2006-2007, and the numbers are the percentage of the populations who can be found without insurance at any given time. This one will curl your hair, folks. (Keep in mind, the national average during the same period was 15.6%, which is nothing to brag about). 50. Texas (24.8%) 49. New Mexico (22.7%) 48. Florida (20.7%) 47. Louisiana (20.2%) 46. Mississippi (19.8%) 45. Arizona (19.6%) 44. California (18.5%) 42 (T) Oklahoma and Nevada (18.4%) 41. Arkansas (17.5%).
Now, check out the states with the LOWEST proportion of uninsured:
1. Massachusetts (7.9%) 2. Hawaii (8.2%) 3. Wisconsin (8.5%) 4. Minnesota (8.8%) 5. Maine (9.1%) 6. Connecticut (9.4%) 7. Rhode Island (9.7%) 8. Pennsylvania (9.8%) 9. Iowa (9.9%) 10. Vermont (10.7%)
Why do the people of Texas and Florida, who have the largest number of uninsured, continuing to support politicians who are quite obviously working against their best interests, while the politicians with the least problem are leading the fight? Max Baucus' Montana is just below the bottom ten, with an average of 16.7% of their population uninsured; what the hell is he doing advocating against the people of his state, and working against attempts to insure more of them? And Blanche Lincoln? if you think Arkansas can get by without a public option, think again. Your state is in the BOTTOM TEN.
By the way, the two states with the smallest proportion of uninsured also have something akin to the health care plan being proposed by Congress. Coincidence?
Right wing Republicans seem to never shut up about their alleged economic independence from the federal government. Remember how they all screamed about the stimulus bill, and how incredibly concerned they are about the costs of the health insurance reform bills before Congress? Remember their disgust over corporate bailouts, even though they've been huge fans of such things, until President Obama came along? They've always claimed to be advocates for states' rights, and as much autonomy from the government as possible. And you've heard them all rail and whine and cry about welfare, and they openly make fun of anyone who depends on the government to get by.
Well, the hypocrisy cup runneth over, folks.
Meet the state welfare queens. These are the top ten states — the ones who get the most bang for the buck. Every single one of these states gets more federal tax money than they pay in, which means other states get less than they pay in. Now, if you were a right winger, would it seem fair that some states get more tax money back than they pay in, while others get less than they pay in?
Check out this list of the top ten states in federal largesse, and answer that for yourself. Next to each state is how much money they get back for every dollar in federal taxes they pay in; 1. New Mexico, $2.03 2. Mississippi, $2.02, 3. Alaska, $1.84, 4. Louisiana, $1.78, 5. West Virginia, $1.76, 6. North Dakota, $1.68, 7. Alabama, $1.66, 8. South Dakota, $1.53, 9. Kentucky, $1.51, 10. Virginia, $1.51.
Yes, that's right, folks, the top ten federal welfare cases are all states that have been reliably red for a long time, although the inclusion of Virginia would seem to be somewhat unfair, since the northern part of the state is practically federal territory, with several federal agencies located there, which is where the federal spending goes. But note that the same could be said of Maryland, and it's not on that list. Of course, number 11 is Montana, anyway, so it almost doesn't matter. Right wing red states are the greatest recipients of federal welfare, contrary to what they want you to believe.
Now, based on right wing logic, the following states should be the ones screaming the loudest about those Red State welfare queens. These are the ten states who receive the LEAST federal money; 50. New Jersey, $0.61, 49. Nevada, $0.65, 48. Connecticut, $0.69, 47. New Hampshire, $0.71, 46. Minnesota, $0.72, 45. Illinois, $0.75, 44. Delaware, $0.77, 43. California, $0.78, 42. New York, $0.79, 41. Colorado, $0.81.
Basically, the blue and bluish-purple states are largely subsidizing many of the red states, which have been run into the ground by Republicans over the years. Then next time a right winger gets apoplectic at the very thought that an undocumented immigrant pregnant woman might have a child in a California hospital, remind him that California taxpayers spend a hell of a lot more of their tax money effectively subsidizing their states, because their right wing leadership can't lift their states out of the economic dark ages.
By the way, in case you're wondering where these rankings come from, they come from the Census Bureau, except for the FBI figures, as noted. I know pinheads such as Michele Bachmann think the Census Bureau is pure evil, but those of us with a brain know better.
Put simply, the current incarnation of the Republican Party are hypocrites, their supporters are hypocrites and delusional, and if anyone tries to convince you that neocons are better at doing anything with regard to government, show them these stats. In fact, print this and hand it out to any co-worker who argue that Democrats are screwing things up. It might not shut them up, but it'll make you feel better.
I suspect someone here is a professional blogger (hint: talis). The topic here is totalitarian regimes. Maybe he/she got lost or had a lot to unload. There probably is more to the story than what this person is going on about. I don't have the time to research it all. Most of us don't. We have to go to work. But this certainly isn't the way to 'prove' Stalin was better than Hitler if that was the goal.
Yes, I see that now with this White House taking over the Census Bureau most of the stats are mysteriously 180 degrees out of reality. Notice he mentions income, but nowhere are taxes mentioned. It's NET income that matters. Talking strictly wages is like comparing apples to..um..nothing. Another commodity he fails to take into account is freedom. Since most red staters would consider that the number one criteria it's a huge exclusion. Wages/money are somewhere down around number 10 on the list. Property Rights, Free Enterprise, Freedom of Religion, Firearms Freedom, Free Speech, Limited Government would all come ahead of wages/money. All leftists ever think about is money. Mosty they hate people who earn it honestly and love people who steal it personally or by proxy.
Federal money that Red states receive as compared to the taxes they pay is bribery money the blue states pay to the Red states so that the people in the blue states don't starve to death. If they ever had to fend for themselves for their sustenance they would be shit up a crick without a paddle. We could live without a friggen computer or blackberry, etc., but they couldn't live without food, electricity, oil, or textiles, etc. Aside from that, consider that only 29 cents of every federal dollar collected goes for anything other than to finance the federal bureaucracy and administration of programs. Cut the taxes and let the people keep the other 71 cents as stimulus. Red States have surpluses in many cases, blue states have deficits. My red state had a 1.3 billion surplus last year. You look at blue states like Michigan who have had decades of bugetary problems and unemployment problems and you can tie it to decades of democ-rat “leadership.”
John Lott's extensive study and subsequent book: 'More Guns, Less Crime' blows the crime “data” out of the water. And leftwing ciminologists have reviewed Lott's work and found it to be scientific, taking the various nuances into account and they cannot fault it. Which are supported by other criminology studies by Wright and Rossie, Stephen Hallbrook, Don B. Kates, Gary Kleck, etc. One problem that some of these states have in combating crime is that they have heavy populations of the criminal class, which was created by and is being sustained by the left. Guns in the hands of ordinary law-abiding citizens, e.g., 98.5% of gunowners, are only a danger to criminals, foreign enemies and a arbitrary, statist government. Also, the biggest reason the crime rate has dropped in recent years is because of the 40 states that have enacted Right to Carry laws. Those states have dramatically reduced their crime rates across the board, while the blue states crime rates have increased.
As he pointed out the Red states have the upper hand in education, because various studies have shown and common sense would know that it's not money that gives good education. The states with the highest literacy rates spend appreciably less money per student than the failing states. The red states where this doesn't necessarily hold true are states with high populations of the criminal class.
The category he lists for the uninsured is not a valid category since the federal government has no jurisdiction here. It's none of their business and it's unconstitutional to attempt to make it their business. Lock n Load.
Otherwise he either skews other “data” or it's already being skewed by the now politicized Census Bureau, just like the 2010 Census will be skewed. That's why this White House took it over and it's why they wanted ACORN in on it.
Maybe they disagree. But it is true. We have to face it otherwise this country could be transformed. I am russian immigrant and can tell you that what happened in Russian in 1917 when Revolution started – was unbelievable for many people. Many of them – well-off people supported Lenin and his followers believing in the same old slogans about social justice, land for all peasants, factories for all workders, in general in paradise without rich people. And we know the results – ruthless centralized government who murdered people, always needed enemies, chain of concentration camps and one equality for all – misery – with small exceptions for our rulers who know how we have leave, what to eat, what to wear, what to read ..etc
Based on your comments, I see you really do not know what you are talking about. Since I survive communizm I can tell you with full first hand authority that there is not difference between what is called fashizm and communizm. Both are based on total government control over individual in all major aspects of his/her life. Both literally takes freedom from individual and make everybody basically slave of government. Both exterminated millions of people. The difference between them is not very huge- one is based on class rasizm and another one on ethnical rasizm. Both ideologies are two side of the same monstrocity.
KeraCare produces quality products for African American hair, especially if you have an itchy scalp from braids or hair weaves. However, their shampoos and conditioners tend to sometimes leave black hair dry and brittle, unless it is there detangling shampoo. As a result, although their products will help your scalp, they will leave your hair looking like you did it yourself. If you have a relaxer or chemically treated hair, and are use to using products like Elasta QP, Motions, or TCB, then it is long over due to make the switch to all natural hair care products.
Shut up, you incomprehensible ass. You wasted 10 minutes typing this pointless insult just to say absolutely nothing.
johathan, as a right wing moron in good standing, I'm sure most things are incomprehensible to you. When one raises stupidity, ignorance and the pursuit of evil to the level of a sacrament, the results are pretty obvious. You are a moron. May the lord drop a particularly large and smelly one to your upper lip.
talis4, you are wasting your time.
johathan, as a right wing moron in good standing, I'm sure most things are incomprehensible to you. When one raises stupidity, ignorance and the pursuit of evil to the level of a sacrament, the results are pretty obvious. You are a moron. May the lord drop a particularly large and smelly one to your upper lip.