• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

Our nation was NOT built on 'rugged individualism'. That is 'conservative' revisionist myth. Our first settlers were damn near as collective commune as you can get. The Puritans to the North signed compacts and conventions before landing. Communal divisions of labor and resources, each able bodied man and woman owed labor to the group.

you are definitely correct that the Pilgrims tried that.

for a year. many of them starved to death.

then they switched to individualism (they had a much steeper learning curve than modern liberals).

and, oddly, ate pretty well thereafter :).
 
But your interpretations are sheer nonsense. Your understanding of history seems dubious, as well.

Show me a debate where Marx or Engels did not partake in a redirect tactic then.
 
We are a representative democracy, which fosters wide participation in public government. The entire point of the system is to facilitate diversity -- to prevent the political domination of one class over another. In fact, that is the very nature of individulalism. Without diversity, you can't have individualism. Without cooperation, you can't have individualism. The idea that everyone should share the same values is the exact antithesis of "freedom" and "rugged individualism."

What a pantload. Rugged individualism is not about sharing. Or about anything common. Its about self-accountability. Upon that foundation all other things can then be built. Without it, all other things will eventually, but surely, fail. American liberalism, aka being a lardass, foments the latter.

American liberalism has become like worst petules of Communism. Communism at least shared the common. American liberalism only shares the labor of others. The "largesse of the treasury". It is the worst cancer that can infect the Republic.
 
you are definitely correct that the Pilgrims tried that.

for a year. many of them starved to death.

then they switched to individualism (they had a much steeper learning curve than modern liberals).

and, oddly, ate pretty well thereafter :).

CP. A pleasure to read the words of someone who knows what actually happened, and not this liberal rainbow of how they wish it happened.

Look it up NotQuiteRight. Communism was a massive fail with the Pilgrims. Many starved to death because that system could not rise to the level pf production needed to withstand the harsh realities. So they switched to rugged individualism. To capitalism. To enabling "have's and have not's" based on one's own brains and braun, where the charity of the have's made sure that the have-not's endured as well. That's what America was founded on, not all the liberal crappola.

Look it up liberal.
 
Last edited:
Wait...you are calling republicans communists now? They are the class warfare geeks.

Is the pathetic attempt at humor by you funny ? :lol: Or sad ? :(

Me votes the latter.
 
What a pantload. Rugged individualism is not about sharing. Or about anything common. Its about self-accountability. Upon that foundation all other things can then be built. Without it, all other things will eventually, but surely, fail. American liberalism, aka being a lardass, foments the latter.

American liberalism has become like worst petules of Communism. Communism at least shared the common. American liberalism only shares the labor of others. The "largesse of the treasury".

I'm talking about individual worth. I'm talking about individual merit. I'm talking about the freedom to have different goals, hopes, desires, values, ideals and outcomes. If you don't respect diversity, then you don't respect individualism. Diversity means allowing people to be individuals. In fact, in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference between your utopian idea of "rugged indivualism" and the pie-in-the-sky communism you claim to detest.

It is the worst cancer that can infect the Republic.

More cancerous than your irrational hatred?
 
More cancerous than your irrational hatred?

Is american liberalism about self-accountability? no.
Can a system last based on taking from others? Historically, the answer is no.
Does American liberalism share the labor of others and declares that labor a right? Yes..

Seems pretty rational and accurate to me.
 
I'm talking about individual worth. I'm talking about individual merit. I'm talking about the freedom to have different goals, hopes, desires, values, ideals and outcomes. If you don't respect diversity, then you don't respect individualism. Diversity means allowing people to be individuals. In fact, in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference between your utopian idea of "rugged indivualism" and the pie-in-the-sky communism you claim to detest.


More cancerous than your irrational hatred?

Again. A complete diaper load.

No one is denying anyone's right to have their goals, their "pursuit of happiness" as codified in our Founding Documents.

But see what I bolded ? Your words "Individual merit". In your view, individual merit is some pathetic notion of a guaranteed outcome. In mine, and the mind of rugged individual Americans, its to have equal opportunity. Huge difference.

"Diversity" is not guaranteed either. Liberalism <spit> :roll:
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about individual worth. I'm talking about individual merit. I'm talking about the freedom to have different goals, hopes, desires, values, ideals and outcomes. If you don't respect diversity, then you don't respect individualism. Diversity means allowing people to be individuals. In fact, in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference between your utopian idea of "rugged indivualism" and the pie-in-the-sky communism you claim to detest.



More cancerous than your irrational hatred?

The cancer is your irrational ignorance of what America is founded on, and what has made it great.
 
Is american liberalism about self-accountability? no.
Can a system last based on taking from others? Historically, the answer is no.
Does American liberalism share the labor of others and declares that labor a right? Yes..


Seems pretty rational and accurate to me.
Are you referring to taxation?
 
Are you referring to taxation?

Sharing the labor of others or a right to labor has nothing at all to do with the idea of taxation.

My point has to do with how we treat services and what people can and can't deny people. Can I deny someone sick service? Yes or no? The answer is no. Why is that? Because someone declared someones labor a right and it sure wasn't people like myself. Can a public teacher say they will not teach a certain student? The answer is no again. Why is that? Because again someone declared labor a right. In the UHC system that people support can doctors deny coverage of individuals? The answer is again no. In the current mandates on the books for business can the business deny whatever service the government says they must provide? No, they can't because again someone declared labor a right. Who do you think this was? Liberals. Democrats maybe not for all, but liberals all the same. This is in an effort to share the labor of others so that people have what people think they should but otherwise can't get without someone somewhere being forced to it for them.
 
Last edited:
Do you see American history, then, as a long regression? Do you see the rise of American dominance as a threat to the world?

What? I think when you have a constitution that is declared the law of the land it should be followed and upheld. If it is not, I feel people should go to jail for treason.

When we have people saying the welfare clause allow the government to take care of people or when we Nancy Pelosi forming an entire website trying to convince people that the commerce clause allows the government to control interstate commerce they should be removed for their extreme amounts of ignorance
 
Last edited:
Again. A complete diaper load.

No one is denying anyone's right to have their goals, their "pursuit of happiness" as codified in our Founding Documents.

But see what I bolded ? Your words "Individual merit". In your view, individual merit is some pathetic notion of a guaranteed outcome. In mine, and the mind of rugged individual Americans, its to have equal opportunity. Huge difference.

"Diversity" is not guaranteed either. Liberalism <spit> :roll:

My point was that more than one point of view -- even opposing points of view -- can have merit.

Not only do you appear to not understand what I'm saying, but you attempt to prescribe my own beliefs so you can denounce them. You continue to argue against a caricature of your own creation.
 
My point was that more than one point of view -- even opposing points of view -- can have merit.

Not only do you appear to not understand what I'm saying, but you attempt to prescribe my own beliefs so you can denounce them. You continue to argue against a caricature of your own creation.

You obviously don't have a clue what individualism means. When he tells you what it actually means that is not his own creation.
 
What? I think when you have a constitution that is declared the law of the land it should be followed and upheld. If it is not, I feel people should go to jail for treason.

When we have people saying the welfare clause allow the government to take care of people or when he Nancy Pelosi forming an entire website trying to convince people that the commerce clause allows the government to control interstate commerce they should be removed for their extreme amounts of ignorance

Who would throw into jail first, Washington, Adams or Jefferson? Perhaps all three? Certainly, the Louisiana Purchase was extra-constitutional and grounds for a charge of treason, no? How about the Sedition Act? Or just Nancy Pelosi because you don't like her website?
 
My point was that more than one point of view -- even opposing points of view -- can have merit.

Not only do you appear to not understand what I'm saying, but you attempt to prescribe my own beliefs so you can denounce them. You continue to argue against a caricature of your own creation.

"Can have merit" ... yes. "Will have merit" .... no.
 
Who would throw into jail first, Washington, Adams or Jefferson? Perhaps all three? Certainly, the Louisiana Purchase was extra-constitutional and grounds for a charge of treason, no? How about the Sedition Act? Or just Nancy Pelosi because you don't like her website?

I would stick to people that are living..

And Nancy wouldn't go to jail for her ignorance but be removed from office.
 
You obviously don't have a clue what individualism means. When he tells you what it actually means that is not his own creation.

"Oh, lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"

We may not even be capable of communication at this point.
 
So to recap once again:

West makes the following claim: "I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party"

This claim is proven false.

People claim that it could be true because progressive is the same thing as communist. This is shown to be not true.

People then try socialism. Again shown to not be true.

In amongst all this is the usual laundry list of supposed evils of any one to the left of the far right. The topic is abandoned to just turn this into a attack. The smell of desperation gets heavy. No one actually wants to admit that a republican might have gotten it wrong. Oh no, the problem is just that facts have a liberal bias so we just need to ignore them, and ignore what words mean.
 
That's the thing with bigotry -- it feeds on itself. There is no real-world subject of your irrational hate and fear. Rather, you hate a caricature that exists only in your mind. You hate the nameless, faceless "communist."

Au contraire my naive little friend. Communism does have a face and it's filled with the hatred that caused over 100 million deaths and destroyed many millions more lives. It was, an is, evil incarnate, the worst scourge of the previous century, worse than Nazism, Fascism or any other ism you care to name.
And here's the thing. Because the communist has no face and no name, because he is only an idea you've conjured, you can conjure him again and again at will. You can see him wherever you choose.

Communism is idea i've conjured? No, it's not. I'm seen it up close in eastern Europe and witnessed the human suffering. Are you also a holocaust denier?

Frontline Fellowship - Working for Reformation & Praying for Revival

Robert Fulford's column about The Black Book of Communism
 
"Oh, lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"

We may not even be capable of communication at this point.

Are you saying that I simply don't understand what you are saying? Bull****. You showed a complete lack of understanding of the idea and it has nothing at all to do with my understanding of what you wrote.
 
Oh no, the problem is just that facts have a liberal bias so we just need to ignore them, and ignore what words mean.

Lol, so general welfare means what?

Tell me who is ignoring more here. Liberals or their opponents? I'll wait..
 
Who would throw into jail first, Washington, Adams or Jefferson? Perhaps all three? Certainly, the Louisiana Purchase was extra-constitutional and grounds for a charge of treason, no? How about the Sedition Act? Or just Nancy Pelosi because you don't like her website?

Here we go again. How absurd.

1) What extra-Constitutional process stopped Jefferson from being impeached ? And you apparently do not understand "treason".

2) The Alien and Sedition Acts were eventually overturned by Congress. They were also voted in before Judicial Review was established.

3) Washington ? Tell us where Washington violated due process and jailed Congress in its attempts to impeach him ?

All these pretend liberal historians. What a joke.
 
Lol, so general welfare means what?

Tell me who is ignoring more here. Liberals or their opponents? I'll wait..

Ummm...bat**** insane libertarian crap isn't the topic.
 
"Can have merit" ... yes. "Will have merit" .... no.

Agreed.

Do you agree that representative democracy concedes, as a fundamental, that multiple points of view do have merit? Otherwise, we should seek out a dictatorship, as it's far more efficient. The founders obviously recognized this and favored a system of compromise over one of control or orthodoxy. So "rugged individualism" is correct, in the sense that individuals are entrusted to make choices for themselves by a doctrine that respects such diversity. it does not mean that we are or should be free of obligation or "force."
 
Back
Top Bottom