Liberalism and Communism: Not Much Different

Liberalism has many slippery slopes that makes it one or tops two steps from outright communism. Let’s look at the similarities. Liberalism evidently doesn’t value life. Communists have killed over 100 million people since 1917. Liberalism has, through abortion killed 50 million babies in a massive infanticide. They are also pushing the legalization of doctor assisted suicide. Communism’s stance on life: worthless. Liberalism’s stance on life: Worthless except when you are a criminal. Then you are a poor person indicted by an unfair justice system.

Liberalism and communism are separate somewhat in the areas of private property. Communists see that all property should be owned in common and overseen by the governing authorities. Liberalism doesn’t mind having private property as long as everyone else’s is taxed enough to provide for the common good. Evidence Michael Moore: He rails against capitalism in his new propagan… er, I mean documentary yet when questioned by Sean Hannity about his own personal wealth he him-hawed around the questions surrounding how he became so exorbitantly wealthy. The truth is, liberals don’t mind wealth so long as yours goes towards their goal of social justice and redistribution of wealth.

Taxes is another area where libs and commies are similar. Both want high taxes to support a behemoth government that takes care of everyone. Liberals also take it a step further by making taxes not only a way to pay for government, but also to make up for real and supposed injustices in the past. They want rich people to pay A LOT more than what they are paying now so they can give that money to the poor disadvantaged people that have been taken advantage of through the evil, greedy corporate culture of capitalism. Liberals will never admit that America through it’s capitalist system has raised more people from poverty to middle class status than any socialist country in the world. Nay, than ALL the socialist countries in the world.

Liberals also seem to revel in praising socialists and communists. At least four of Obama’s key administration officials have praised communists. Anita Dunn and the FCC chief are the two most prominent. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama admires some of the tactics and ideas of socialists.

Americans need to wake up to the evil of liberalism. I think that the movement is already beginning. With conservatives being more numerous than liberals by a two to one margin, Americans are diametrically opposed to the liberal viewpoint. But we need to be vigilant and begin to reverse the trend of liberalism in the arts, medicine, media and other areas. Liberalism in its most basic form is akin to communism and fascism.

30 Responses to Liberalism and Communism: Not Much Different

  1. TranceGemini says:

    I’m sorry, I have a very difficult time taking seriously anyone who cites James Dobson as–well, anything but starter for my fireplace. He is an abusive, misogynistic…I sha’n’t even continue that thought, because I’m doing my best not to cuss on someone else’s blog (I find it rude). My point is, aside from your spectacular lack of citations in your posts, you’re now telling Zero to read something by Dobson as if his writing is anything but religious zealotry. He preaches to abuse women and children and speaks with hatred in his words. Christ, were he present, would be absolutely horrified at Dobson, Focus on the Family, and the doctrines he preaches therein, and in his books. If he could pull his head out of his…Bible, perhaps he might make some points worth listening to, but if one debates with but one tool, one is bound to be taken down by others who have learned, like intelligent primates, to use many tools.

    • I have not read anywhere where Dobson recommends abusing women. What has he said with hatred in his words? And I agree that sometimes we do act very un-Christlike. However, being human we will never live up to Christ’s example which is why we need Him in the first place. BTW, I have yet to find someone that has debated and disproved his points on marriage or the family.

  2. TranceGemini says:

    The system we have in place clearly does not work, and those sorts of half-assed (pardon my French) patches on an open wound like our system are just adding insult to injury (pardon the pun).

    We do need an overhaul of the health care system–just like we need an overhaul of the education system, of the foster care/social work system, of the welfare (also social work) system. I am against waste as much as the next hard-working taxpayer (hey, I’m unemployed now, but I work during the summers regularly and am in school so that I can be a contributing member of society and earn a living wage someday), but the system we have doesn’t work as-is, and it would take more time and oversight to put the sorts of things in place about which you were speaking (grammar fail here, sorry) than to simply revamp the system into something usable.

    I think we should start over from scratch. Hire a team of doctors, psychologists, and burnt-out social workers (trust me, they know what we need as far as health care!) and leave them alone in a think tank for six months. I actually have several ideas for health care reform, but unfortunately, to write them out here would be lengthy. Should I decide to put them up in my own blog, I will be certain to drop you a link so you can come and debate them there. I lean more towards education reform (I’m a teacher), so don’t mind me if that’s all I really want to talk about as far as the government. 😉

    • I agree that we need people that have first hand knowledge of the system to come up with a plan. We do not need politicians who are about as far removed from the problem as it gets deciding who gets what surgery or who pays for what.

      I also think we need education reform. We need all kinds of reform in D.C. But I won’t go into detail because I have things I need to do shortly. (I am also unemployed so I have a lot of stuff to do around the house. 🙂

  3. TranceGemini says:

    I have Medicaid because I cannot afford private insurance. I’m a full-time, unemployed college student. I’m too old to be on my parents’ insurance (I’m 25), but far too young to apply for Medicare.

    There are ten million–ten MILLION–people in this country without health care. Since you seem to be very religious, and you religious-types like that sort of thing, I’ll point out that six million of them (give or take) are children. Their parents make ever so slightly too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private insurance, and employers in the US are not forced to offer any coverage for their employees.

    Statistics aside, a single emergency-room trip for a child having an asthma attack or a broken leg can run into thousands of dollars. God forbid they have cancer or something which requires long hospitalization or chronic treatment.

    I’m curious as to why the idea of more people being covered, getting treatment, and being healthy (healthful) is a bad thing.

    Do you want more children to die from easily preventable childhood diseases and traumas?

    • What an outlandish statement to think that I want more children to die from preventable diseases! If there are ten million uninsured, why can’t we come up with a deal between doctors, patients, insurance companies and the government to cover ONLY THEM? For instance, there could be a tax credit, or grant from the government to the people to buy health insurance. There doesn’t need to be this whole charade about government run care, rationing, over expense, waste, fraud and abuse. Have tort reform, create some protections against dropped coverage from preexisting conditions and lower prices through intra-state competition. That’s all there is to it.

  4. Zero says:

    Never hear of it? Look and you shall find:


    Four links talking about private insurance in Canada, including that Private insurance accounts for about 12% of Canadian spending. And that was a google search that took me less than 5 minutes.

    You are trying to side step my point. The elderly still buy private insurance and therefore are still a source of income to the private insurance companies. This proves that a public option would not send the insurance companies under. It might, however, cause them to reduce their prices to compete with it (wait…..that’s what we want them to do….)

    • According to your first web page, notwithstanding the private insurance thing, Canada also has fewer doctors and nurses than the OECD average, higher rates of lung and breast cancer and lower birth weight babies. Do we want this?

      Your second site states that private insurance is only bought to cover drugs etc that are not financed by the public health service. This proves my point rather than yours. Private insurance in Canada is far lower than the U.S. We definitely should not go to a Canadian system wherein cancer survival rates are lower. One thing you fail to mention is that while the care at the point of care is free, people definitely pay for it by taxes.

      • Zero says:

        Hold on, you claim that “fewer doctors and nurses” are the result of public option? There can’t be any other explanation? Really? Think of it this way, with the abundance of doctors and nurses in the US, it makes the success of a public option that much easier. Just because it is far lower (in a system which was public first and added private afterwards) does not mean that the private sector would be eliminated by the public option, on the contrary it proves that a private sector can exist even with the publicly funded plan.

        I’d rather pay for a plan with taxes so that it is there for me when I need it, than have an extra, separate plan that costs MORE than the portion of taxes that would have been taken for it which I STILL have to pay at the point of care. Seems I save money on the public choice.

        Also, just to back up a bit I’ve done a little bit of research. “Read the book Marriage Under Fire by James Dobson and you will see some very good arguments against gay marriage and reasoning as to why traditional marriage completes society.” So you claim I should read a book written by James Dobson about the goodness of marriage and reasoning. James Dobson is also the head of publication for the Christian magazine Focus on the Family, a scary Catholic “journal” which basically breathes horrible hell-filled fire-and-brimstone on anyone who doesn’t oppose abortion and then beat the resulting children into line. And I’m not being facetious about “beat the resulting children”. He literally advocates the beating of children. We’re not talking about “spanking” or otherwise light punishment, beating with a hickory switch, belt or rod. So this is who I should take advice about “traditional” family from? Give me a break.

      • Yes I am claiming that, the public health care industry has forced many doctors and nurses to either leave practice or leave the country looking for work. They once had an abundance of doctors too, but with universal care the doctors got less and less until they could barely make it in the industry. Now they have a shortage.

        What journal are you talking about? I have not seen anywhere where Dobson advocates beating children.

      • Zero says:

        “Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted. . . [T]wo or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.'”
        From The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4. James Dobson

        Stinging strokes with a switch? Really? That’s not spanking…that’s beating.

        “Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest… Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.”
        — Also from James Dobson

        So let me get this straight, you beat them until they cry. Then if they don’t stop crying, you beat them again? All this will do is cause your child to fear you. Not only that, but they will have a deep resentment of authority (rather than the respect for it you want to instill). Numerous psychological studies prove that physical punishment is not the answer for raising children. Most child-care experts agree with this.

        If the costs of healthcare go down due to competition, then the costs of treating will go down as well. Therefore doctors can afford to be paid less (like a lot of professions in this country) while still making just as good of a profit. Hmm seems logical. Then again, shouldn’t a doctor who is making enough to survive on be happy to be healing others? Who cares if he can’t afford that Mercedes? To go to another country as a doctor, simply for the greed of more money is ridiculous. What happened to wanting to heal and do good for others?

      • As to the above quotes from Dobson, I disagree with using a switch but I do not disagree with spanking. My mother did it to me and I have a healthy respect of authority.

        As to the cost of living and doctors, they deserve to be paid enough to want to continue in their profession. I agree that helping people should be the ultimate goal, however, when one cannot afford to live as a doctor in one country, I have no qualms with them moving for a better life.

      • Zero says:

        So you agree that Dobson advocates beating your children? While ideas on spanking may vary, the fact is he advocates beating your children until they cry, and if they don’t stop crying to beat them again. That is ridiculous and downright cruel. There is no reason to listen to a man such as that on any topic.

        You didn’t read what I wrote about the doctors. How is it “moving for a better life” when they are being paid just fine to continue in their profession yet they just want more money? “Oh no, public option pays me less. I guess I have to keep my current car and not by that Mercedes.” I’m sorry, but it’s just plain greedy to claim that just because they aren’t making as much as someone in private practice that they aren’t making enough money when they are making quite enough to continue their profession and the only factor for “more money” is greed.

  5. Zero says:

    Actually if you pay attention to what I’m saying, I’m not saying that it’s perfect or anything. What I AM saying is that it is not the horror story that is repeatedly described by conservatives. There are pros and cons to both ways of dealing, but if you read part of the reason for the supposed better care of the US is technology. A public option would not remove this technology and therefore should not affect the care. Your argument can be turned around, have you ever used the health care in Canada or the UK? How can you claim it is so horrible if you have not used it yourself or don’t listen to those who praise the fact that they can go to any doctor and receive quality care?

    Consider this, if more people could afford health care then less people will end up in the emergency room. Less people in the emergency room means less people are saddled with inordinately expensive emergency room bills that they cannot or will not pay. This results in less monetary loss for Hospitals which then allows lower costs. Lower costs then allows insurance companies to pay less. While it would probably never happen due to greedy corporations, the lower payments to hospitals would allow insurance companies to lower their premiums.

    The assertion that public insurance would overrun private insurance is completely fallacious:
    1) Canadian healthcare has both public and private insurance and works fine.
    2) Medicare is public insurance, it has not overrun private insurance.

    There are even those in both Canada and Medicare who use both public and private healthcare to cover all their needs. Why hasn’t Medicare overrun the private insurances? Why do the private insurers in countries like Canada still thrive and make a profit?

    • 1. Canadian health care does not work fine. [] Many of the problems from years ago are still prevalent. Often, while the care may be decent, the wait times are killer. []
      2. Medicare does not and has not overrun the private insurers because Medicare only covers the elderly. Once government gets its sticky fingers into everyone’s health care, it’ll go downhill. The post office is a prime example of government largesse and inefficiency. [] Maybe what we need to do is privatize the post office and allow several competitors.

      And lower costs NEVER come about from the government. EVERY prediction they have ever made has fallen way short. Why trust them now?

      • Zero says:

        1) Canadian health care allows private practice and private insurance so if you want ‘free’ health care you go to the government system, if you don’t like it you’re free to get private insurance and go get what you want. People complain about the wait times and claim foul but don’t realize they have other options (don’t you free market people like having options?)

        2) But by your logic medicare would have overrun the private insurers insuring the elderly. So that all elderly ONLY have medicare and not a single person has private insurance. But this is wrong…very many elderly have medicare AND a private insurance to cover the few things that they don’t like about the way medicare covers it. So isn’t that proof that public insurance would not overrun the private insurers?

        Insurance prices in the “free market” have just continued to rise and rise. Adding competition should reduce prices, this only works when there is actual competition. The public option would provide competition thereby reducing prices. I don’t see the problem since I just proved (see above) that it wouldn’t overrun the private insurers.

      • The difference is that elderly people are not the only ones buying insurance. Insurance companies have a whole other demographic to sell their products to. As a result the insurance companies can afford to insure the elderly without worrying about being sunk by medicare. If government run health care can cover everyone, the government can afford to way undercut the insurance companies and make it unaffordable to do business. As a result they would sink, taking more jobs with them.

        As to Canada, if there is a chance at private insurance, how come you never hear of it? Most insurance companies have probably went under due to the government care. As a result, many Canadians come across the border for treatment rather than staying in their own country. Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach had her reast cancer surgery done in the U.S. Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec had his cancer treatment in the U.S.

  6. Ben Hoffman says:

    Conservatives are a lot closer to fascism than liberals are to communism.

    • Tell me how Hoffman. How are conservatives closer to fascism? Do we support infanticide in the name of choice? Do we support a ever growing government taking more of our money, freedom and productivity to redistribute the wealth of hard workers to some lazy bum that doesn’t want to work? Tell me how conservatives are closer to fascism? Because we believe in traditional marriage? Every civilized nation that is not in the middle of a domestic collapse supports traditional marriage. Every nation that allows gay marriage has been destroyed or is being destroyed from within.

      • Zero says:

        You made three points here. 1) Redistribution of wealth, 2) abortion, 3) gay marriage. Of these three points, 2 are viewpoints based in faith not fact. Please don’t presume liberals are communist simply because they have a different viewpoint on issues whose merit is wholly based in religious beliefs.

        Also, please give an example of some country that allowed gay marriage that was destroyed or is being destroyed as a result of it.

        Particularly with health care, the “free market” has proven that it was not able to properly make a fair system. In this case, capitalism has failed and thus something needs to be done. I’m not saying that the current bill is the way to do it, but reform away from the “free market” needs to happen with healthcare. Some industries run just fine under capitalist principles, others don’t. Usually the reason is when corporations (like insurance companies) value money more than they value human life. The constitution says we have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” how is the right to life guaranteed when in many cases you end up bankrupt to preserve your life?

      • Redistribution of wealth is enough to make liberals and communists alike. Are you denying that your political affiliation supports redistribution? In every country where homosexuality has been approved or sanctioned, the country has failed.

        Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Europe now. The countries are failing economically, socially and spiritually.

        The ‘free market’ in health insurance is not free at all. If companies could compete across state lines, competition would increase, prices would decrease and care would get better. But thanks to the idiotic government and special interests, only in-state companies can offer health insurance, thus leading to monopolies and higher prices. If government would get out of the way, prices would go down.

      • Zero says:

        While it is true that some prices might go down, the amount of care and procedures covered under the health insurance would go down also.

        Health insurance companies have a habit of cutting off the people who need them the most just to save money. They also have that pesky problem with pre-existing conditions. Do you think it is wrong for government to stand up for its people and prevent the health insurance companies from trading lives for money?

        The fall of Ancient Greece and Rome had nothing to do with their homosexuality. There are many valid theories on their decline but not one has to do with homosexuality.

        In the example of Rome, you have the following: Overexpansion and inflation (hmmm sound familiar?), increasing dependence on mercenaries who later turned on them, the invention of the horseshoe in Germania led to the inevitable destruction due to superior technology, disease and lead poisoning, etc…

        Just because a country that approved of homosexuality fell into decline, does not mean that homosexuality is the reason. Correlation does not prove causation.

      • Sodom and Gomorrah tolerated and approved of homosexuality on a massive scale. Archaeologists have now concluded that a catastrophe destroyed the two cities in keeping with the Biblical account of catastrophe sent by God to punish them for their great wickedness.

        The Roman collapse was due to several reason, however moral decay was one of the most prolific. Diseases included ones spread by rampant sexual escapades between many partners, male and female. Decadence in the military lead to an army unfit for war and unprepared for an invasion. Some of that lead to mercenaries being hired. Rome fell not only because of homosexuality, but that was certainly one of the reasons.

        On to health care: If there was competition, than an insurance company that provided more service would get more customers thus forcing the competition to increase their care and procedures. Competition has always lead to better products, better prices and better care. Look at electronics. If Sony were the sole maker of televisions, would not the quality of the TVs suffer since there was no one else to buy from? No, there are probably more than 50 TV makers and the prices have fallen while the quality has risen. Features have been added, HD television came about due to ever increasing demand for better picture and they have gotten thinner. Your argument falls on its face.

      • Zero says:

        You take theories about the Roman collapse and refer to them as if they are fact. Therefore your argument that “homosexuality was a reason for the collapse of Rome” is fallacious. There’s no proof at all. Also you pointed that “rampant sexual escapades between many partners” was a point for diseases. This makes no distinction between hetero- and homosexual escapades, therefore regardless whether or not there was homosexuality, the problem would have been the same, thereby nullifying your argument that homosexuality was specifically a reason for it’s collapse.

        If you’re so supportive of competition, what is wrong with a public option in health care? The purpose it would serve is to provide competition to the existing insurance companies. I’m not against allowing insurance across state lines, but I doubt it would be enough. Actually having a low price option would be better.

        You also didn’t address my issues of government regulations preventing the refusal of pre-existing conditions and dropping high-cost people. Do you agree with me on this point then?

      • I agree that immorality, be it through homosexual or heterosexual partners, is wrong. However, men and women are made to fit together, emotionally, physically, etc. Read the book Marriage Under Fire by James Dobson and you will see some very good arguments against gay marriage and reasoning as to why traditional marriage completes society. And when homosexual relationships are glorified it destabilizes the society as a whole leading to further destruction of the marriage equation. Polygamy becomes the next step and after that… it is disturbing.

        On the health care issue, I agree that dropping someone with a condition or denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is wrong and there should be some protections for consumers. However, the public option does none of that. Rather, it kills private insurance that many people are happy with in favor of socialized medicine which has been proven to take longer to get life saving surgery, be worse at curing cancer and other diseases and costs more money.

      • Zero says:

        Part of the current healthcare reform bill DOES do that prevention.

        As for the public option it doesn’t kill the private insurance companies. That is just fear mongering rhetoric. All it does is provide an government option, similar to Medicare in concept. You won’t be forced to choose the public option, if you’re happy with your current private care you would be able to keep it. The public option is just that, an option.

        Also, the fact that you claim “socialized medicine” “has been proven to take longer to get life saving surgery, be worse at curing cancer and other diseases and costs more money,” proves you haven’t done research and are just saying what you’ve heard from others. The US spends more money than any other nation on health care and are lagging behind those same countries in quality. What makes more sense, our current situation of in-network, out-of-network, expensive health care where the private insurances decide what you can and can’t do (well they decide what they’ll pay for but considering the alternative is prohibitively expensive, they effectively decide what you can and can’t do), or a system where you can go to any doctor and it’s not prohibitively expensive to get whatever treatment is required.

        Also, life-saving surgery happens when needed (as with ANY system, some people do fall through the cracks but not millions such as the current system), it’s been shown that it’s only the non-life-saving surgeries (cosmetic and the like) are the ones where you end up having to wait.

        And it costs less money to boot.

      • Right, have you READ the bill? I tried reading the bill and I couldn’t. The bill is a convoluted mess with funding for abortions, illegal immigrants etc. I have done research. Let me get you some links about cancer etc:

        American men have a 91.9% survivability rating for prostate cancer. Contrast that with 73% in France and 51% in Britain. [] Last year 100,000 operations were canceled by the National Health Service in Britain. [] From the 2003 heat wave 35,000 Europeans died. [] Do YOU want that to happen here? Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had his 2006 open heart surgery done at the Cleveland clinic. If socialized medicine is so great, why didn’t he have his surgery done in Britain or Canada?

      • Zero says:

        So the point of the video is that insurance companies should cover less things and more should be paid out of pocket? Utterly ludicrous. All that would do is result in more people without health care.

        I can give good links too:
        [] Have you ever heard the phrase ‘70% of statistics are made up on the spot’? But since you like them so much, let’s take a look at what this says. We’ll use your statistic for prostate cancer:

        “A Lancet Oncology global study last year found that 91.9 per cent of Americans with the disease were still alive after five years compared to just 51.1 per cent in the UK.”

        However the US uses the PSA prostate cancer test far more widely than the UK does. Regardless of the controversy over how effective this test is, the fact that it is more widely used is the reason the US has the highest recorded rate of prostate cancer. Which also means that we also have the highest rate of false positives too. There’s no way to really know how many people received unneeded treatment, but it proves that the “survival statistic” is artificially inflated. Now if you look at the UK statistic for survival rates of prostate cancer found in the early stages, you find a 98.6 percent chance of survival.

        This is an example from that link that debunks a bunch of the myths. By no means do I claim it is perfect, however it is not the horrible mess that the anit-public option crowd would have you believe. BTW, all the citations for my above rant is in the link above it.

        There’s no reason why a public option cannot coexist with the private insurance companies. Insure more people, get more people to see doctors for primary care instead of the overuse of emergency care that is currently happening.

      • I can hardly make out any of the mess that you just posted, however, I’ll try to debunk your facts. You forget to mention that the sites that I cited included EVERY form of cancer: breast, prostate, etc. Even if the stats are artificially inflated, explain the disparity between the UK stats and the U.S. stats. Your own sources cite that American health care is better for breast cancer. It also states that America is better at catching prostate cancer despite the risk of catching something that isn’t actually cancer.

        The point of the video is to show it’s not all fine and dandy over there. Have you ever tried their health care? Or Canadian health care? How can you claim it’s so great when you haven’t used it or don’t listen to the dissenting voices of those who have?

      • Also, public insurance can compete but will eventually overrun private companies due to the massive funding available for public insurance due to tax revenue as opposed to premiums. Therefore, public insurance is a nuisance that will eventually override any competition and force us into a Cuban style health care system where choice is gone, quality is gone, and all our money is gone too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: