Ben Carson and the Holocaust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we arm people who scream death to America and who attacked us multiple times on our own land?

If you are referring to Muslims, why do you believe that all Muslims scream "death to America" and have attacked us multiple times? Isn't that the sort of stereotyping that contributed to the Holocaust? Do you support a "Muslim exception" to the 2nd Amendment?

If they are American citizens, nope. If they are not, yep.

Oh so the Bill of Rights is only for citizens? Non-citizens don't get freedom of speech or due process? Sorry, that's un-American. We don't pick and choose who gets protection based on citizenship. I'm sure there's a nice Gulf oil monarchy where you can find a government that supports your point of view. Oh wait, you won't be a citizen there so you won't get full protection under the law. Sucks to be you I guess.

You don't hand weapons to people from a foreign country who's mantra is to kill Americans. You should not even let them in the door, frankly.

If your neighbor threatened to kill you, would you arm him? No. Because that would be stupid.

So ALL noncitizens have a mantra to kill Americans? Wow, that's critical thinking for you. Are you using your education at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

[Anonymous]

Is it because you are a racist that you are gaslighting a world-renowned pediatric surgeon?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

Are you implying that I don't want to maintain our Constitution and our law? That is not "truth".

If the state says it doesn't own the land and the Federal government says it doesn't own the land, who is Cliven Bundy to say who owns the land? What difference does it make to him to whom he pays? How can you support his law breaking while implying that I don't support our laws?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

Are you implying that I don't want to maintain our Constitution and our law? That is not "truth".

If the state says it doesn't own the land and the Federal government says it doesn't own the land, who is Cliven Bundy to say who owns the land? What difference does it make to him to whom he pays? How can you support his law breaking while implying that I don't support our laws?

Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

Educate yourself Jeff. See the bigger picture:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/30/cliven-bundy-is-a-racist-but-federal-ownership-of-state-land-is-still-a-serious-problem/


That’s where Cliven Bundy comes into the picture. Bundy failed to pay federal grazing fees for two decades and was, therefore, in violation of federal law. Bureau of Land Management officials secured a court order to round up the cattle Bundy let graze on federal lands.

Yet, although Bundy’s family homesteaded the land more than a century ago, Bundy was willing to pay grazing fees to the BLM until the Bureau demanded he not graze his cattle in springtime. That’s the only season cattle can gain weight on a desert range. As Las Vegas columnist Vin Suprynowicz reported, the Bureau flew in the face of existing research when it imposed the requirement in order to protect the habitat of the desert tortoise.

The federal government, in short, chose to privilege the tortoise over the long-established livelihood of Bundy and his family. As Bundy told reporters from Range magazine in 1999, “Every time we tried some compromise—they wanted more. It was like talking to a greedy landlord.”

The above is precisely why I think progressivism is a cover for socialist.

[Anonymous]

Let's also not forget the Gibson Guitar raids, in which wood was taken at gunpoint, not returned for two years, with no criminal charges filed. And Gibson had to settle otherwise the costs of the lawsuit would have been ridiculous.

Furthermore, the government admits there were inconsistencies in the policy from their end to begin with!

Further, the settlement states that the Government and Gibson "acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks" under the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy.

Statement from Gibson's CEO:


"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said, adding that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means," including what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Further, Gibson noted that the years-long investigation has cost taxpayers millions of dollars -- and put a "job-creating U.S. manufacture at risk and at a competitive disadvantage."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

I support Bernis Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Most actual socialists would have a good chuckle about that. "Socialism" in its strictest sense designates a relationship to the means of production. People such as yourself tend to use the term to describe any government program that you don't like, or if you are making an effort, any government program that involves redistribution of wealth. The US income tax system involves the redistribution of wealth. That has been found to be constitutional. Therefore, government programs that involve the redistribution of wealth are not inherently unconstitutional. "Socialism" as a socio-economic-political system didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and, therefore, couldn't be addressed. But, ownership by groups, communities, and the government has been found to be constitutional. So, I am a bit baffled about what you believe to be unconstitutional about the socialism. Nevertheless, even if the Constitution prevented socialism, much like it prevented female suffrage and allowed slavery, there are legal means to change it. So, even in that case, supporting socialism would not mean an unwillingness to support our laws.

As for Bundy, you have lots of excuses for his lawbreaking. You are welcome to all the excuses you can invent. It is still hypocritical to defend law breaking in the same post you accuse someone else of supporting law breaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's proposing "Venezuela?"

Nobody.

Pretty idiotic statement to say "See Venezuela, how's that working out."

Really? I've heard 'the Government can crush you', 'the benevolent government gave out that land', etc. Clearly, no one understands that the more that's under government control, the more power the government has over you.

What would you have proposed to be done with land captured from the Mexican government? It was transferred to US government ownership and then leased to others. What arrangement would you propose that is better than that?

Do I want to argue with someone who supports a socialist for President? No. Your judgement is already poor.

Suffice it to say, Harry Reid could have easily fixed the Nevada land issue and didn't. Which tells you all you need to know

Translation: I actually can't think of anything to say so I am going to cast about ad hominems and blame Harry Reid. Guess what? Cliven Bundy could have easily fixed it as well.

We were TALKING about Nevada land and the Feds vs State. If you look it up, Bundy was willing and had been paying taxes to the state until they refused to take it. Again, Reid could have fixed the problem. How much of the land in Nevada do the Feds own, Jeff? More than 50%? 70%?

Sanders is a self-admitted socialist. You support Sanders. You are more than a big government guy - you want a government takeover via socialism. It's people like myself that want to maintain our Constitution and our law. Truth is truth.

Are you implying that I don't want to maintain our Constitution and our law? That is not "truth".

If the state says it doesn't own the land and the Federal government says it doesn't own the land, who is Cliven Bundy to say who owns the land? What difference does it make to him to whom he pays? How can you support his law breaking while implying that I don't support our laws?

Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

Educate yourself Jeff. See the bigger picture:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/30/cliven-bundy-is-a-racist-but-federal-ownership-of-state-land-is-still-a-serious-problem/


That’s where Cliven Bundy comes into the picture. Bundy failed to pay federal grazing fees for two decades and was, therefore, in violation of federal law. Bureau of Land Management officials secured a court order to round up the cattle Bundy let graze on federal lands.

Yet, although Bundy’s family homesteaded the land more than a century ago, Bundy was willing to pay grazing fees to the BLM until the Bureau demanded he not graze his cattle in springtime. That’s the only season cattle can gain weight on a desert range. As Las Vegas columnist Vin Suprynowicz reported, the Bureau flew in the face of existing research when it imposed the requirement in order to protect the habitat of the desert tortoise.

The federal government, in short, chose to privilege the tortoise over the long-established livelihood of Bundy and his family. As Bundy told reporters from Range magazine in 1999, “Every time we tried some compromise—they wanted more. It was like talking to a greedy landlord.”

The above is precisely why I think progressivism is a cover for socialist.

If you don't like your landlord then find yourself a new one. Better yet buy your own property with the money you have saved by taking advantage of subsidized grazing on federal land. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

I support Bernis Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Most actual socialists would have a good chuckle about that. "Socialism" in its strictest sense designates a relationship to the means of production. People such as yourself tend to use the term to describe any government program that you don't like, or if you are making an effort, any government program that involves redistribution of wealth. The US income tax system involves the redistribution of wealth. That has been found to be constitutional. Therefore, government programs that involve the redistribution of wealth are not inherently unconstitutional. "Socialism" as a socio-economic-political system didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and, therefore, couldn't be addressed. But, ownership by groups, communities, and the government has been found to be constitutional. So, I am a bit baffled about what you believe to be unconstitutional about the socialism. Nevertheless, even if the Constitution prevented socialism, much like it prevented female suffrage and allowed slavery, there are legal means to change it. So, even in that case, supporting socialism would not mean an unwillingness to support our laws.

As for Bundy, you have lots of excuses for his lawbreaking. You are welcome to all the excuses you can invent. It is still hypocritical to defend law breaking in the same post you accuse someone else of supporting law breaking.

I would not vote for someone who doesn't understand who he is. Or wants any part of socialism.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you support Bernie Sanders? You stated in past posts you do. Bernie is a socialist. Socialism is not part of our founding documents.

I support Bernis Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist. Most actual socialists would have a good chuckle about that. "Socialism" in its strictest sense designates a relationship to the means of production. People such as yourself tend to use the term to describe any government program that you don't like, or if you are making an effort, any government program that involves redistribution of wealth. The US income tax system involves the redistribution of wealth. That has been found to be constitutional. Therefore, government programs that involve the redistribution of wealth are not inherently unconstitutional. "Socialism" as a socio-economic-political system didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and, therefore, couldn't be addressed. But, ownership by groups, communities, and the government has been found to be constitutional. So, I am a bit baffled about what you believe to be unconstitutional about the socialism. Nevertheless, even if the Constitution prevented socialism, much like it prevented female suffrage and allowed slavery, there are legal means to change it. So, even in that case, supporting socialism would not mean an unwillingness to support our laws.

As for Bundy, you have lots of excuses for his lawbreaking. You are welcome to all the excuses you can invent. It is still hypocritical to defend law breaking in the same post you accuse someone else of supporting law breaking.

I would not vote for someone who doesn't understand who he is. Or wants any part of socialism.

Good luck with that. Getting rid of Medicare should be a winning campaign issue among the octogenarians to whom the Republicans are trying to appeal. For myself, I prefer to argue politics rather than labels.