I'm so sick of Denialists who refuse to except the facts about Communism and the evil it created for hundreds of millions of people.and the threat that it posed to those not yet taken by it.

Just like we used Nazism to push millions of young men into government service.

Well no, sometimes the monsters are actually real. Look up the history of the Ukraine, and who started WWII in Europe by invading Poland, and the gulag, and...(I could go on and on but I need to get some sleep).

To get to paranoia over communism you have to replace paranoia over nazism.

You think it wrong to call the concern about Nazism "paranoia"? It is similarly wrong to call the concern about Communism "paranoia". Communists killed a whole lot of people. They were equally involved in the invasion of Poland that started WWII in Europe. They killed millions in Ukraine through forced starvation. Name something the Nazis did and you can find the equivalent in Communism (except for developing nice cars like the Volkswagen; the Communists didn't do anything like that.).

Good luck getting Communism Deniers to admit this. I would be happy if we can get them to admit that Russian Communism was just as evil as Nazism.

One of these things doesn't belong here...

How many people were executed by McCarthyism? Sure, some careers were set back, but the same can be said of how we handle racism, sexism, and laws concerning homsexuality? People lose their jobs for speaking their minds due to fears the government will huge amounts of money to be taken from employers as a result of a lawsuit.

You have modern day examples of witchhunts but you choose one from 60 years ago. Why?

And the witches McCarthy were far more dangerous and worthy of being hunted.

The philosopher they were channeling had said life, liberty, body and property. Also the forerunner to the Declaration of Independence was the Virginia Declaration of rights which said "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Later of course property was included as fundamental in the Fifth Amendment which said "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and again in the Fourteenth Amendment which says "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Property is so fundamental that it was one of the earliest rights recognized. The Magna Carta says, "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

So yes, we all do have the right to property. It is fundamental.

I wonder how many innocent people had themselves and their careers ruined by Communists. I seen numbers over 100 million just for people murdered by Communists. The number of careers ruined is many times that - both by simple matter of Communism not working and by deliberate attempts to deprive people of education (see the Cultural Revolution and talk to my physics professor who spent his college years on a farm rather than learning physics and researching). .

I lived in Taiwan for year. I loved not understanding the advertisements! It was so relaxing to stroll down a street without being assaulted by a million words struggling to get my attention.

It's not just Youtube. My wife took our elemtary age kids to see a Transformers movie. The pre-movie trailer was for Hostel.

Assuming you misspelled "Libertarian", a libertarian would be extremely opposed to slavery. A strict libertarian would expect infrastructure to be paid for by user fees. You're right though that police protection from slavers and other criminals, enforcement of contract law, and free and unfettered access to modern technologcy would be something a libertarian would expect.

Disclaimer: I used to be very libertarian. I'm not anymore because a healthy libertarian society requires people to be intelligent and rational, and long experience has taught me that in general we are neither.

A guy told me some 20 years ago that he read about an artificial life experiment in which a specially designed operating system was created to allow programs to execute code and, like computer viruses, reproduce themselves while competing for the resources to do so. He said the result was a program that copied itself very efficiently in a manner that the researchers found very hard to understand and was totally unexpected.

Sadly he couldn't explain the details and didn't know the experiment, but if what is says is true, did it pass the Lovelace test? It certainly seems like something that could have occurred given the capabilities of computers at the time.

Please don't use insulting slurs like "USian". The polite term in English is "American".

It would have made more sense to complement the 1000 foot measurement with a measurement in yards. But any physicist crazy enough to propose a huge wall around the American midwest is most likely crazy enough to use metric.

Yep. Amazing isn't it. The same wall that would keep undocumented people from entering the country would also help keep guns from getting to the drug lords in Mexico, and would also greatly reduce the amount of illegal drugs entering the country, and would prevent many other kinds of contraband from flowing across the border, and would also reduce human trafficking. And it would allow us to amnesty the illegal immigrants already here without fear of encouraging larger waves of future illegal immigrants (like the Reagan amnesty and the illegal Obama Dream Act did).

And if Democrats are to be believed about the usefulness of borrowing and spending, building a secure border would stimulate the economy as well.

However this wonderful border wouldn't help rich people keep wages low so corrupt members of both parties don't want it. And a secure border won't help Democrats tilt demographics in their favor so even the less corrupt Democrats don't want it. Not to mention that if the border were secured and our immigration problems largely solved the Democrats would have one less excuse for falsely accusing their opponents of racism. So we're not getting a secure border anytime soon, if ever.

No. I learned in 4th grade about different thinking styles. I can spell very well when I see things written down or when I'm writing. But listening or speaking is not something I do well. My wife is foreign and used to get very irritated at me when she would ask me what a word meant when she was reading, and I couldn't tell her when she spelled it out loud. It took her a while to learn that she either had to spell it very slowly or let me look at it.

Getting back to the 4th grade spelling test: when the teacher asked me a word and I had to spell it out loud, I suddenly discovered that I couldn't speak and spell at the same time. Translating what I would imagine on the written page into a spoken letter while keeping track of where I was in the word turned out to be extremely difficult for me.

I've improved over the years, but it didn't come naturally.