Stalin is the end result of socialism and which it decays too. Typically there are two scales one with Socialism where Communism and Fascism are at either end of the scale, for the free-market or better known as freedom scale there is anarchy and authoritarianism. If we put society over the individual, we will always slide into some form of despotism/dictatorship/oligarchy, the old saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". When you have the few controlling the majority that's bound to happen at least as history shown us. Maybe there should be a saying "all roads of socialism lead to Stalin"?!?

"Stalin was right wing also, and most likely Mao was too. Despite the appeal to collectivism, both were strong authoritarians who created a new ruling class to replace the old. That makes them right wing" Really? this a new one, So Barrack Obama is a Right winger too, since he's very authoritarian. By your definition there is no Left wing.

I'm not debating what you're saying, I know that their are a lot on the left who believe in out and out lying and demonizing the other side to (try) shut them up.It's just that I also know there are still RHINO's that abound as well.

As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.

So the Progressive Democrat party is to far right? what does that make you Stalin? Mao?

?yaw thgir eht si, yaw hciW

Agreed.

Sadly neither side is the epitome of Liberty, but Democrats are no better, that is for sure.

Ask your lawyers, as I'm sure you should have some by now.

Also in France, the only way to advance your career is to wait for someone to die, basically whatever job you have at the start of your career is typically the last one you'll have.

Thanks for taking it out of context, I wasn't making that connection. Although when you think of it it has a bit to do with exceptional-ism.

Then I guess must be real old because I always took care of my own retirement and never thought that it was anyone's elses responsibility. Working at the state level most of the people I knew who went to work for the state had only one thing in mind, not how well to do a job but to stick it out so they can collect their retirement at age 50 then they could go somewhere else. Or so they've told me. That's kind of what 'entitlement' mentalities provide, not to do a good job but to stick it out, do the job well enough not to get fired so you can collect in the end. And then there are people who want to do a good job and thus get promoted and get better pay and end up retiring when they want to with a million in the bank.

"Here, we obsess with saving our jobs. There, life balance is better whenever it's measured."

I've been there I would never say its better, in fact I feel sad for them, there is no exceptional-ism, most of time I've stayed always left with a feeling they are just existing, not for the worse but not fort he best either.

"We skip vacations, work thru lunch. They do neither. And get more holidays and vacation time. Some have shorter work weeks"

That's a choice people make, I can't say for others. I enjoy my work so I do extraordinary well at it. IMHO go there if you like that stuff, no one would stop you unless they they have a harder stance on immigration than the U.S which oddly enough they do.

"Why are employment situations in the EU so much better?" Even at it's worse, employment situation in the U.S is far better than the EU. Pure propaganda.

+1 Insightful

Pfffft that all?!