TexasCHLforum.com

From Wayne LaPierre.

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/arti ... -socialist

What’s the difference between Democrats and Socialists?

It’s not a joke, nor is it a trick question. But it is a question even national Democratic Party leaders have a hard time answering. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Democratic National Committee chairwoman, couldn’t answer it and, instead, said the more important difference was between Democrats and Republicans. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said it depended on how you define Democrats versus Socialists, and then he refused to define the two.

Even Hillary Clinton was stumped by the question, merely describing herself as a “progressive Democrat” and not a Socialist.

You would think these Democratic leaders would be able to answer the question. But they either can’t tell the difference, or they simply refuse to admit the hard truth.

Wow, that's scary! At least in the past they would claim to be different.

One must also not forget that socialism has killed millions upon millions of people, mainly the government killing their own people. Fall in line or die.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/socialisms-death-count/

What’s not appreciated is that Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, the term Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis pale in comparison with the horrors committed by the communists in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China’s communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii professor Rudolph J. Rummel’s website and in his book “Death by Government.”

https://rickkelo.liberty.me/socialism-mass-murder/

Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him. All socialist programs are mandatory. My friends and I get together, decide what we think is “good” then force you to participate. If you are a 25 year old with a terminal disease you are forced to contribute 12% of your wage to social security even though you will never retire.

While Pol Pot killed far fewer people in Cambodia than Mao, it is reported he killed up to 25% of his own people. You've already seen a few crazies on the left openly state that they want pro 2nd Amendment people killed. At the Florida "town hall," the crowd was chanting for Ms. Loecsh to be burnt. You won't see the leaders of the Democratic party publicly call for the killing of those that do not agree with their views, yet.

If history is any clue to their future actions... I'll let you figure it out.

Why do you think they are trying to disarm us? You cannot subjugate an armed populace, the slaves may not agree to their enslavement! As much as they scream and holler about stopping the "violence" or "Protecting the children" or any number of reasons they lay claim to none of that is born out by the facts! The one and only reason they want gun control is they intended to impose their socialist agenda on the rest of us, they can't do that if we are armed to the teeth!
The AR15 and it's equivalents are the modern militia Rifle, they intended to have then! MOLON LABE!

In the early 1920s, American "progressives", the first "dreamers", fell in love with the romantic concept of a "worker's revolution", as done by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Woodrow Wilson was an early supporter.

While the Bolsheviks may have had good intentions to create a pure communal society, unknown to them, one of their early leaders, Vladimir Lenin, was an opportunist. He let them do the heavy lifting of overthrowing the Czar, then started murdering selected leaders, and working his way into leadership. Eventually all the original members of the Politburo were murdered or driven into exile.

American progressives seem to have missed all of that, as they continued to believe, for decades, that Communism was a mild societal structure based around sharing. Many still do.

In 1936, civil war broke out in Spain, an early attempt by Stalin to convert Europe to Communism. In America this was portrayed as a "worker's revolt", and thousands of Americans flocked to Spain to fight on the side of the Communists. There were so many that they were formed into a unit called the "American Legion". They were armed with thousands of Mosin-Nagant rifles supplied by Stalin.

After WWII, American progressives became "peaceniks", and insisted that the USSR was a peaceful nation, and that we were the bullies (sound familiar?). Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a House committee (HUAC) in a search for Communists in govt and media. He was half-right. There were very few card-carrying Communists (Alger Hiss notwithstanding), but there were many progressives very sympathetic to them. This came to a head in 1953, when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for treason for turning over to Russian spies technical data on the atomic bomb. Despite overwhelming evidence, some progressives still maintain that they were framed.

American progressives/liberals/democrats/Marxists/etc have a long history of either supporting or being sympathetic to Communism, which they see as a harmless society based on communal sharing of resources. This is complicated by the fact that some policies of FDR leaned heavily on Marxist ideals (Social Security, Medicare, Works Progress Administration), as did the Income Tax and Obamacare.

Most Americans today were not yet born when FDR started us down this road, so they accept these ideas as a normal part of a compassionate society, like open borders.

This is why I don't usually say "Democrats" but rather the term "progressive socialists."

The Democrats can deny what they are, but their words, actions and intentions are plain.

skeathley wrote:In the early 1920s, American "progressives", the first "dreamers", fell in love with the romantic concept of a "worker's revolution", as done by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Woodrow Wilson was an early supporter.

While the Bolsheviks may have had good intentions to create a pure communal society, unknown to them, one of their early leaders, Vladimir Lenin, was an opportunist. He let them do the heavy lifting of overthrowing the Czar, then started murdering selected leaders, and working his way into leadership. Eventually all the original members of the Politburo were murdered or driven into exile.

American progressives seem to have missed all of that, as they continued to believe, for decades, that Communism was a mild societal structure based around sharing. Many still do.

In 1936, civil war broke out in Spain, an early attempt by Stalin to convert Europe to Communism. In America this was portrayed as a "worker's revolt", and thousands of Americans flocked to Spain to fight on the side of the Communists. There were so many that they were formed into a unit called the "American Legion". They were armed with thousands of Mosin-Nagant rifles supplied by Stalin.

After WWII, American progressives became "peaceniks", and insisted that the USSR was a peaceful nation, and that we were the bullies (sound familiar?). Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a House committee (HUAC) in a search for Communists in govt and media. He was half-right. There were very few card-carrying Communists (Alger Hiss notwithstanding), but there were many progressives very sympathetic to them. This came to a head in 1953, when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for treason for turning over to Russian spies technical data on the atomic bomb. Despite overwhelming evidence, some progressives still maintain that they were framed.

American progressives/liberals/democrats/Marxists/etc have a long history of either supporting or being sympathetic to Communism, which they see as a harmless society based on communal sharing of resources. This is complicated by the fact that some policies of FDR leaned heavily on Marxist ideals (Social Security, Medicare, Works Progress Administration), as did the Income Tax and Obamacare.

Most Americans today were not yet born when FDR started us down this road, so they accept these ideas as a normal part of a compassionate society, like open borders.

The corner stone of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive movement was the rejection of the very principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.