The US is going to regret not supporting Assad on this one. We are going to regret arming Islamist rebels even more. This dog will turn and bite the hand that feeds.

"He picked the right Country to live in. It's becoming more and more like Nazi Germany by the day."

He was Ukrainian. Ukraine at that time was dominated by the communists. The validity of the comment, however, doesn't change a whole lot by replacing Nazi with Communist. The two are idealogical cousins.

Another interesting angle that no one has yet mentioned:

When the German army first entered territories controlled by the USSR, including Ukraine, many residents viewed them as a liberating army that was going to save them from the communists. Stalin's policies has resulted in tens of millions of Ukrainians being killed because they opposed the Soviet government. There were at least two militant groups that had varying levels of cooperation with the German Army.

Furthermore, most of these Ukrainian nationalist groups were not inherently anti-semetic. They would either kill jews or help them, depending on whether either course helped them achieve their own political goals. And while these groups were involved in atrocities against Poles, they were Polish communists who supported the Soviet government. Later in the war, some of these groups were actually allied with the Polish anti-communist resistance.

Not saying that this guy wasn't a Nazi, but being a Ukrainian nationalist whose unit was allied with the Germans is a little different than being a Nazi. The communists were just as bad, and perhaps worse, than the Germans in many respects. They certainly killed a lot more people.

A good article from the Economist regarding poverty in the United States

"Dr Kabamba earns enough to feed his children, but not as well as he would like. The family eats meat about twice a month; Dr Kabamba calls it "a great luxury". In America, poor children eat more meat than the well-to-do. In fact, they get twice as much protein as their government says is good for them, which is why the Wal-Mart near Mr Banks sells such enormous jeans."

"I guess 22% child poverty rate ... must be magnificent in your eyes.... a real demonstration of how capitalism works."

Who is responsible for a child being in poverty? Is it society alone, or should we...I dunno...maybe hold the parents accountable? Is there maybe something they could have done to avoid or minimize the poverty? Get a job maybe? Go to college? Something like that?

Or are those things not allowed in the US?

"Scandinavia has the a child poverty rate of 2-5% the US has 22% Higher than Canada 15% and approaching Mexico's 27%"

What you really mean is that Scandanavia has a lower grown-up poverty rate. The child poverty rate is nothing more than an adult poverty rate couched in more dramatic terms, in order to appeal to one's heart strings. It's pretty much impossible to hold children accountable for their parent's low economic value, so it's optimal to portay them as the victims. They are victims, but rather than being victims of society, they are victims of thier idiot unproductive parents.

And if it is so much better there? Why are you still here. We've already estbalished tthat freedom of movement is allowed. I'm not particularly concerned about poverty, since it doesn't really exist here in the US.

"I guess the US has ambitions of being like Mexico (the capitalist wet dream) We know things are going swimmingly well there."

???

Mexico is a capitalists wet dream? Shooting from the hip a little, are we?

The dominant political party in Mexico is the PRI-the Institutional Revolutionary Party. They are a member of the Socialist International, and like all Socialist parties rely on government having strict control over the population. The fact that the country sucks a little should come as no surpise, given its socialist history.

"Just pointing out how narrow and stupid your remarks are."

Narrow? Stupid?

At least I didn't make mine up...

"Profits over People."

When you are giving 70% of your earnings away as a means of helping the poor, then you can talk. I'm guessing you don't-you just expect others to do so.

Generally speaking, progressives aren't interested in sacrificing their own standard of living in order to help others. They want to keep their standard of living by forcing someone else to make the sacrifices required to provide for those who don't provide for themselves

Lemme try this again:

"You are completely free to move to a country where taxes are VOLUNTARY (provided you can find such a beast!)."

And those who want an expansive government social support system can move as well. And there are plenty of such beasts! North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on? Why would one person demand that they abandoned their desired end-state completely, so you could achieve one that is already available?

You are completely free to move to a country where taxes are VOLUNTARY (provided you can find such a beast!).

"What are you going to do when we get rid of government and then someone bigger and meaner than you decides he'd rather take your stuff than work to get his own?"

Uh, that's what government does, essentially. Take stuff from those that have and give it to those that don't want to get their own.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is that governments should be there to manage those programs that are essential to state security, and provide opportunity.

"So you think all human cruelty stems from government and without it no one will victimize other people?"

Government has bee the mechanism by which the greatest number of people have been victimized.

"Because when I balance my household budget I don't create unemployment or thrown my kids out on the street to do it."

Niether does the government. Unemployment is simply the result of people who choose not to work. It's not as if the government is preventing them from working. In addition, the government doesn't have offspring. People do. And it is the responsibility of those people to care for their offspring. Because the government can't. All they can do is force someone else to do it.

"An economy is not about the accumulation of wealth, it is about the circulation of money. The more money that is moving, the better it is for everyone."

A healthy economy is about the creation of wealth, which serves as the foundation of a fiat currency. And wealth will go where it does the most good. When people stop investing and start spending, interest rates will go up as a means of attracting investors. Or they would in an economy where things such as interest rates were not determined by the federal government.

The bottom line is that any system will work when it has the support of the people. Free markets tend to favor the most people but generate wealth inequality as a result of the inequality in the economic value of each individual within that society. Socialism works very well in small units, such as a family. I know that in my household, the money I earn is distributed according to need. But this is possible because I care more abour their welfare than my own. Apply that paradigm to a larger population and the system fails. I really don't care that much about my neighbors. If they want what I have, they can get a job. It's not my duty to support them.

Sometimes the dialogue on this site is far more sophomoric than what occurs between my two daughters, ages six and seven. Patrick Stewart was able to have a significant positive impact on another person's life. It doesn't mean that he has solved any sort of global problem, just that he is a good dude. Why is that not enough. Why politicize it?

"You're accusing them of spying?"

Nope. Just of being "useful idiots," to borrow a term coined by Lenin. These guys are professional protesters. Somebody pays the bills? If you were Chinese intelligence, wouldn't you want to make sure that people like this were able to continue doing what they do?

"You fail to realize the bottom quintile could support a family then."

Support a family? I'm not sure what you mean. If I am unable to provide sufficient sustenance, clothing, and shelter for myself or my family, we die. That's a constant that has held true for as long as there have been humans. So even when you consider "poor" people-those who made clothing out of burlap and subsisted on a min caloric intake-they still were being supported.

The post WWII economy required lots of manual labor. Not surprising given that manufacturing was still relative primitive compared to today's standards. This meant that if you could lift an arm, you could make money. That's not the case today. You could eliminate taxes altogether on low productivity labor and it's not going to improve their standard of living substantially. The only way you can accomplish that goal, if that is you goal, is through redistribution. Taking from high productivity workers.

And I don't want to come off as a Reagan Groupie. I'm not. I would consider Bill Clinton to be the most fiscally conservative president we've had in modern times.

"Over the last 65 years taxes have become increasingly regressive."

Untrue. During the 1950's, when the top marginal federal income tax rate stood at around 90%, the marginal rate for the bottom quintile was over 20%. Today the rate for the bottom quintile is about 2%. Furthermore, in terms of total tax burden, the Regan tax cuts resulted in a leftward shift. So, even while the top income earners were paying a lower rate, they were paying more in overall taxes, while the bottom 50% would up paying a smaller percentage of the total share. Personally, I think that a lot of this had to do with a shift in labor demand, resulting in unskilled workers making less money, and therefore paying less in taxes, but the end result is still the same.

"Yeah right one schedule"

Orwell might have more credibility had not fought in a Spanish militant group that made the Soviet-backed Spaniards look liberal. In the literal sense. Kind of like Kim Jong Un writing a book about an oppressive, right wing government.

Yup. If you're part of the 48% that statistically doesn't pay taxes, or part of the 52% that does pay a low amount, tax cuts aren't going to do much for you.

"Madame fineswine is finally getting her dream come true. The truth is that the very tragic mass shootings are a liberals wet dream because without them ---- this shyt would never happen. And all the extra gun laws in the world won't stop a crazed killer. Nothing but total confiscation will make a difference ---- and you better believe that the gun grabbers are rubbing a woodie just thinking about that."

The fact is that Madame Feinswien doesn't want to grab all guns, just yours. Same with Bloomberg and the rest. Don't expect them to abandon their armed details and leave them at the mercy of the huddled masses.

"They committed the ultimate crime which no authoritarian government will ever forgive: they made a bureaucrat look bad."

Did they? The locations of nuclear missile silos are public information. They contain no organic active security. There are few people who wouldn't be able to penetrate the outer perimeter in a couple of minutes. And if you are Greg Boertje-Obed and Michael Walli, start banging on the silo door.

But within a handful of minutes security will arrive, and they're going to roll you up. Every time. And if you attempt to fight, you're dead.

"Heads should roll from the top down for such security failures. These idiots are lucky they didn't try it at a missile site like Minot.
Might not be worrying about a trial 'cause they'd be dead

Actually, no, Believe it or not. In fact, two of the very same people involved in the Oak Ridge break-in were involved in a similar incident in Minot back in 2006.

"Carl Kabat, OMI, a retired Catholic priest from St. Louis, and Greg Boertje-Obed and Michael Walli, both military veterans from Duluth, Minn., were arrested after breaking into the Echo-9 missile launch facility, which houses a Minuteman III missile with nuclear warheads and is located in McLean County, west of the town of Garrison."

"If you want to focus you anti-profit rage on physicians, focus on Radiation Oncologists. They are the worst, money grabbing whores in the industry."

And if you really want to show your displeasure, then don't procure their services. Die of cancer instead. That'll show them.

This right here is a great example of why a pay-for-service system would never work. A radiation oncologist in high demand would naturally sell his services to those who were most able to afford it, and unless he had some spare time to do charity work, ignore those who were unable to. This would create a have/have-not paradigm, which would in turn create politicians who would claim the system inherently unfair, and demand that legislation be passed that would allow the poor person access to healthcare that was comparable to that of the rich person. Since you can't (yet-we don't have single payer in the US) force the physician to offer his services for free to the poor, the next best solution is for the government, on behalf of the poor person, match the price that would be paid by the rich person. And the best way to do this to by taking the money of the rich person in the form of taxes.

Code Pink are self-serving idiots. Bored old progressives hens with too much money and too much time.

If he (or she) is a politician, your first instinct should be to not trust them. They are probably thinking of some way to screw you.