Estimations of the percentage of conservatives who would support a return to hum

[obumazombie]

Quasi-religious Darwinism? Libertarian leaning conservatives want to keep slaves? And people actually say this to you?

Bitch, please. "Libertarian" is the antithesis of "wanting to keep slaves". "Liberty" is part of our name, for ****'s face.

Zero bongs for you.

It's time for the koan, "What makes DUmmies so ****ing stupid?"

Buzz, you can tell us. Is the DU the Party's hiding place for morons and the mentally ill, or do they become morons and mentally ill from their time on the DU? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Post of the day.
A thing of beauty.
Which comes first...haah.
As if Buzzy would know, or even deign to answer.

[SVPete]

Response to byronius (Original post)Thu Jun 4, 2015, 04:42 AM
Donald Ian Rankin (12,440 posts)
10. Less than 1, of course.

This kind of silliness just proves the danger of spending too much time in echo chambers.

Yeeee-ouchhhh! Arrow straight to the heart! Is DIR genuine DU-folk and a bit too perceptive and honest for his own good? Or a Truth-Troll?

Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #10)Thu Jun 4, 2015, 10:52 AM
Star Member byronius (3,328 posts)
11. Uhhh-huh.

Do you know any conservatives, or is it just hopeful scorn there?

I stand by my estimate. Dominance is the primary philosophical underpinning of the ideology -- quasi-religious Darwinism. Slavery fits. Certainly for the more libertarian conservative. I've heard several state it quite plainly -- most of the ones I know.

Ummmm ... Social Darwinism (to use the old term for it) was/is a Progressive worldview/philosophy, a logical branch of Darwinism that Darwin himself seems to have posited in Descent of Man. And as BD pointed out, slavery is antithetical to libertarianism (unless Bronies-R-Us is using the socialist equivocation, "wage slavery").

I travel in Evangelical Christian circles, where people range from somewhat liberal to very conservative and very libertarian. I have never known a single person - in the over 5 decades I can remember - advocate slavery. As I posted above, at least some Christian Reconstructionists do advocate a form of slavery that really would be what was called indentured servitude. I read that idea in a book by a Christian Reconstructionist, but do not know nor have met  the author. Contrary to the bogeyman image of such folks held by many/most Libs and Progs, they are very few. One would almost have to know where to look to find any.

[Karin]

Response to byronius (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:52 AM

Star Member former9thward (14,664 posts)
16. How many liberals were apologists for the economic slavery in the 1930s Soviet Union?

Quite a few. Probably at least 20%. I can remember in the late 70s articles in liberal publications saying the stories about the forced slavery and massacres in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge were "right wing lies". Ahh, no they weren't.

Nobody replied to this.

Another one said that the conservatives he knew took liberty very very seriously, so they would probably take up arms against it.

All the others were ****ing retards. 

[ExGeeEye]

I just took a poll of my household, which consists of one foaming at the mouth freeper gun nut and one Bush-McCain-Romney party-line voter.

100% of us would be opposed to slavery.

[delilahmused]

These people are ****ing ridiculous!

Cindie

[Ralph Wiggum]

These people are ****ing ridiculous!

Cindie

Sadly, that isn't new news.  The DUmp just continues to plow new ridiculous ground.

[SVPete]

Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:52 AM

Star Member former9thward (14,664 posts)
16. How many liberals were apologists for the economic slavery in the 1930s Soviet Union?

Quite a few. Probably at least 20%. I can remember in the late 70s articles in liberal publications saying the stories about the forced slavery and massacres in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge were "right wing lies". Ahh, no they weren't.

Either f9w was being too kind, posted in a hurry, or was hoping some DU-person would be dumb enough to challenge him. IOW, he could have said a lot more.

He could have mentioned NYT "reporter" Walter Duranty, served Stalin by denying the famine in the Ukraine that killed 5 or 10 million people. Duranty and the NYT received Pulitzer Prizes for those reports. While the NYT acknowledges that his reports were, "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper," I don't think the NYT has yet acknowledged that Duranty was a propagandist for Stalin, nor returned their Pulitzer Prize.

He could have mentioned Sidney and Beatrice Webb, worshipful propagandists for Stalin.

He could have mentioned FDR's second VP, Henry Wallace, who did a propaganda tour of Siberia while VP of the US.

As for lib pundits denying Cambodia's Killing Fields and labor camps, the same was done some 50 years earlier, when men who escaped from the prototype Gulag in the Solovetsky Islands and published accounts of what was being done there. And many Libs/Progs to this day hate Robert Conquest and A. I. Solzhenitsyn, despite their writings about the brutality of Lenin and Stalin having been confirmed and vindicated.

[obumazombie]

Either f9w was being too kind, posted in a hurry, or was hoping some DU-person would be dumb enough to challenge him. IOW, he could have said a lot more.

He could have mentioned NYT "reporter" Walter Duranty, served Stalin by denying the famine in the Ukraine that killed 5 or 10 million people. Duranty and the NYT received Pulitzer Prizes for those reports. While the NYT acknowledges that his reports were, "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper," I don't think the NYT has yet acknowledged that Duranty was a propagandist for Stalin, nor returned their Pulitzer Prize.

He could have mentioned Sidney and Beatrice Webb, worshipful propagandists for Stalin.

He could have mentioned FDR's second VP, Henry Wallace, who did a propaganda tour of Siberia while VP of the US.

As for lib pundits denying Cambodia's Killing Fields and labor camps, the same was done some 50 years earlier, when men who escaped from the prototype Gulag in the Solovetsky Islands and published accounts of what was being done there. And many Libs/Progs to this day hate Robert Conquest and A. I. Solzhenitsyn, despite their writings about the brutality of Lenin and Stalin having been confirmed and vindicated.

It takes supremely talented and courageous men like Solzhenitsyn to break through the propaganda and the apologists to make the world aware of evils like every brand of communism.
Thank God for people like him setting the record straight.

[txradioguy]

Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:52 AM

Star Member former9thward (14,664 posts)
16. How many liberals were apologists for the economic slavery in the 1930s Soviet Union?

Quite a few. Probably at least 20%. I can remember in the late 70s articles in liberal publications saying the stories about the forced slavery and massacres in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge were "right wing lies". Ahh, no they weren't.

What do you mean "were"?

You DUmmies still make excuses for the Communist/Socialist/Marxist way of life and long for our country to adopt the same style of Government.

[SVPete]

What do you mean "were"?

You DUmmies still make excuses for the Communist/Socialist/Marxist way of life and long for our country to adopt the same style of Government.

Well, f9w was speaking specifically of, "the economic slavery in the 1930s Soviet Union". Defending Stalin became less and less common after Khrushchev's 1956 speech, as more and more info trickled out. But the popularity of monsters like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao seem to get a second diseased life as the survivors of their horrors die off. So I would not be entirely surprised if Stalin starts becoming popular among some leftists in the next decade or so.

As you said, most leftists reflexively defend Communist-socialist states. Whether the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Sudan, or Zimbabwe, their monstrosities have to become so very publicly obvious that denials become laughable for leftist defenders to cease. Will Venezuela or Bolivia or Brazil or Argentina be the next center of atrocities? Or have their socialist governments not yet attained the degree of control necessary for them to feel secure enough to act monstrously?