A Specter is also haunting the Supreme Court -

Yeah, well, Bork was a reactionary teaching at Yale Law School. He agreed with conservatives that the poor deserve to be condemned because the poor don't work hard. As we know, recessions and depressions lead to huge job losses - but conservatives argue otherwise.

.

Thanks, Sen. Specter...you are still haunting Bork and conservatives.

.

Robert Bork is my cousin - I am Pork.

F6, Wow! What a hater! Cursing the dead- what's next? What a piece of work you are. Now we know what's wrong with the country-its got people like you in it.

F6Z sure can bear a grudge.

Nice, solid American values on display there, F-man.

Please don't tell me that you attend any church...

F6Zman, I'm worried about you, are you "OK" ??????????????????????????????????????????

@Patriotic American U.S.A. I'm Worried about you too, you seem to have Issues.

F6Zman

He was a Communist Democrat, May he burn in Hell.

The true sign that some republicans are pathetic hypocrites.

@F6Z,

Is that a photo of the planet that you're living on?

Doesn't look at all like Earth...

F6Zman -

News flash, princess. "Communist Democrat" is two words, not one.

You couldn't explain the difference between a "Communist" and a "columnist", between a "Marxist" and a "Methodist", or between a "Socialist", a "Sociologist and a "Scientologist" if your miserable pathetic hate-filled life depended on it.

News flash, being a "communist" is nothing to be "ashamed of".

Lots and lots of people in America looked at RePUGs flinging screams of "socialist! socialist! socialist!" at Obama and thought to themselves, "If these pathetic RePUG Looeny-Toon morons are 'against' socialism, maybe there's something to be said in socialism's favor."

Ohhh and by the way: Obama is gonna kick your RePUG azz on November 6th.

Deal with that, cupcake.

@moshuluu I'm not a Republican, get the Two Party Fascist system out of your head.

@Bali Bob Planet? It's a Moon called "Titan". Don't you idiots know anything about outerspace?

@Phil11514 I'm not a Republican, get the two party Fascist system out of your head. I'm know a lot more about Socialism and Communism than you ever will.

I'm know a lot more about Socialism and Communism than you ever will.

Anyone who would even semi-seriously claim that Specter was a "Communist Democrat" is delusional, insane or been drinking too much Bacardi 151. Which is it, in your case?

News flash, being a "communist" is nothing to be "ashamed of". Really..... being an out and out communist or being enamored of communism is nothing to be ashamed of? It takes a very low IQ to believe communism is a viable form of government so perhaps you are not ashamed. Communism in all its many forms and names, socialism, Marxism, Maoist, Nazi, fascist, and the list is nearly endless in their attempt to hide their agenda, always ends with the enslavement of the citizens and is therefore inherently evil.

Now you, being a superbly public school educated individual, will come back and tell me that Nazi and fascist are right wing and again you will be wrong.

F6Z, My issues are your sick party destroying our Country, I'm an Independent !!!!!!!!!!!

"Wake up dude" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surly_Curmudgen

News flash, being a "communist" is nothing to be "ashamed of". Really..... being an out and out communist or being enamored of communism is nothing to be ashamed of?

Yes, REALLY. It's a perfectly valid political theory, one which still has millions of adherents and admirers around the world. Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and China still to this day have governments that are based on and organized around that theory.

Now you, being a superbly public school educated individual, will come back and tell me that Nazi and fascist are right wing and again you will be wrong.

They are indeed right-wing and again I am completely right and correct.

The ones who are incorrect and invariably lying are the loons who continue to invest immense time, energy and efforts in attempting to lyingly "square the circle" and blame Nazism and fascism -- both of which are pro-corporate and devoted to satisfying the interests of Big Business at the expense of the masses -- on "left-wingers". There was and is nothing whatsoever remotely "left wing" about nazism or fascism, they are inherently right-wing extremist ideologies and always have eebn.

Mind Games-7046467

There are plenty of societies on Planet Earth that are quite comfortable with not being democracies.

There are quite a few societies, principally in Asia, whose populations are quite happy in practice to delegate authority to a ruling elite. Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and China are quite comfortable with being quite openly and overtly Communist. The communist governments in those countries are quite popular and face no opposition whatsoever. There are no antigovernment movements in those countries of any significance, because the populations in those countries support their governments.

Singapore is not communist but is ruled by a dictatorship of the elite. Its citizens have one of the highest standards of living anywhere in the world. Its people are quite comfortable with their form of government and have no interest in changing it.

Governments all over the Middle East are organized on the basis of religion, principally the Koran. The people of Saudi Arabia have some of the highest living standards on the planet thanks to their country's oil wealth and enjoy free health care and free university educations. There is virtually no antigovernment sentiment and no antigovernment or opposition movements. The people see nothing whatsoever wrong with having an autocratic form of government in which they are ruled or governed by kings, ayatolluhs or other religious authorities.

Even in Europe, examples of non-democratic governments can be found. The Principality of Monaco is a family-run country governed by an unelected Duke. The country has one of the highest standards of living in Europe and is a revered tourist destination for the wealthy. Its citizens are happy with their form of government, deeply fond of their Royal Family and completely uninterested in "elections" or a change in their form of government.

Democracy has been said by Winston Churchill to be "the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others". It is a system of government that generally works very well, all things considered.

But it is not for everyone, and it should not be regarded as being a form of government for everyone.

And it very definitely and most certainly should never be imposed upon anyone at all against their will.

Surly_Curmudgen once again shows the superiority of home-schooling and the extreme failure of our public education system. I am NOT being sarcastic. And BTW, I completed 12 years of public school education, much to my shame. I am astounded that someone could actually come on this board and defend communism, a proven failed system of government.

By the way, Phil: Our system of government here in the U.S. is also non-democratic; It's called a republic. But they didn't teach you that in public school either, did they?

So, Arlen " the defector " is dead. That's about as great a loss to America as Ted " the murder " Kennedy dying. It's too bad that they both didn't die hard.

@Phil

You, my friend are fighting a battle that can't be won. These people will never be the least bit able to be educated in different political ideologies. They can't or won't get it through their heads that Fascism and Nazi were both right wing abominations. They just want to hang those on Democrats because they know that calling them socialists just isn't getting the job done for them, mainly because every time there is a Democrat in the White House that's all they know to scream, especially now with President Obama there.

The fact that the fanatics, the crazies, the loons, and the extremest on both the right and left hate thus guy indicates to me that he was an excellent Senator.

Phil, you might want to try to find a better example of paradise than Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and Monaco being a principality & not a duchy, its sovereign is a prince, not a duke, Mr. Brilliant.

Lefties have always tried to foist Nazism & Fascism off on the right, but I fail to see how a command economy can legitimately be considered right-wing.

@Ian

You need to sit down and actually READ and COMPREHEND a book. Maybe, just maybe you can learn something. Nothing is being foisted on the right. It is exactly what it is, an extreme right wing political philosophy.

You don't like it? Tough, sucks to be you and not very bright.

Oxford Dictionary:

Email |
Cite |

fascism Pronunciation: /ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m, -sɪz(ə)m/

Translate fascism into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish

Definition of fascism

noun

[mass noun]

• 
  an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• 
  (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action

• The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

So there you have it. LEARN TO READ!

Also, Phil, what you characterize as being "comfortable with" might be more accurately described as being afraid to oppose.

Pretty much any country that doesn't espouse western-style democracy is a hellhole. That's the real test of the desirability of a political system.

Dennis,

And maybe you should learn to apply some critical thinking. Not to mention, a little civility.

Seriously, the dictionary definition notwithstanding, how can a command economy be legitimately considered right-wing?

And, I'd be comfortable matching my IQ score up against most people's. My reading comprehension level, too.

@ Dennis Price and Phil; You both seem to glory in the ignorance that results from a public school education. Your arguments have the flavor of wikipedia, a source that is only valid for scientific facts. I just read the article on Nazis. The author went to great length trying to disassociate the left from the Nazis and instead tied them to the left, the right, the middle, the communists, the military to everything in the world including a minor god from the Indian subcontinent. This nations political left has been frantic since 1945 to avoid being compared to Germany's Nazis. Look up “The Racist History of the Democratic Party” read and compare with the basic beliefs of the Nazis. Ultimately you want to be asking yourself, do I really want to support the party that is being used as a facade by those desiring the destruction of this nation. That party is the Democrat party.

@Surly

The Oxford Dictionary is hardly Wikipedia. I'm sorry, I should have gone to some LImbaugh site and get the under educated version of non existent world history.

"The Racist History of the Democratic Party” Why is it when I Google that phrase all I get is right wing BS sites. All those racists left the Democratic party in the 1950's-1960's and became Republican because they hated what the Democrats were doing regarding busing and the voting rights act. You can keep them, they make up the John Birch Society and Tea Party.

Do us all a favor and if you're going to cite history at least have a credible source, not some right wing rag that has zero credibility.

Dennis the author of that article is a black preacher with a large inner city congregation in Seattle Washington. I have tried to post the entire link but NBC will not allow that action. The idea that racists left the Democrat party and joined the Republican party is a very old canard that has been very disproved.

Wayne Perryman, an inner city minister in Seattle and the author of Unfounded Loyalty, in an editorial circulating on the Internet (Feb. 2004):

So does that constitute right wing BS?

Dennis I also googled that phrase. on the first page eight of the entries took me to Wayne Perryman's editorial and there where no right wing sites at all. That left me puzzled, either google took you some where else or your beliefs have you so blinded that what is in front of you can not be seen.

@Surly

Here's an example of the first one: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-democratic-partys-long-history-of-racism/

This is a garbage blog that deals with so-called media bias. Yeah, right, just like Fox News is fair and biased. Please, spare me. No, I'm not blinded by my beliefs, much as you would like me to be.

the Sphincter was the epitome of what is wrong in DC!! A true self-serving con artist!! Enjoy your time in Hell, say hi to Kennedy and Hitler!!

The world is a better place today.

Now if the rest of congress could follow his lead, maybe we'd have something.

Ian, common... stop redefining words to your liking. It is very simple:

Right-wing ideology: pro separation of the classes, divides people into the 'have and have-nots'

Left-wing ideology: pro complete equality of everyone, everyone 'has the same'.

Capitalism, Nazism, Fascism, Monarchy are all right wing, they are based on the separation of the classes in varying degrees keeping all power or money among a select elite group. All of these are implementable; but if left unchecked, they tend to lead to totalitarian regimes of one form or another.

Communism, Socialism (and their variants) are left-wing, based on everyone being equal or some type of redistribution. Full implementation is impossible. Communism always ends as a totalitarian regime with an empowered class that defeats the definition of itself; Socialism if left unchecked will lead to the same place.

Democracy leans slightly left, but it really neither right nor left; it is rather the enemy of both extremes.

Mr.Steady

Surly_Curmudgen once again shows the superiority of home-schooling and the extreme failure of our public education system.

Actually what he shows is the complete failure of home schooling and the tendency of the extreme right to brainwash anyone they think susceptible to their lying propaganda.

I am NOT being sarcastic.

Oh yes you are, you little minx.

And BTW, I completed 12 years of public school education, much to my shame.

Ohh that's very debatable as to whether you "completed" it.

I am astounded that someone could actually come on this board and defend communism, a proven failed system of government.

I didn't claim that Communism was "successful" in the Western sense. Perhaps reading and comprehension are not your "thang".

Since communism is still in power in a number of countries with the very overt and direct support and consent of the poeple of those countries then obviously it is not a "proven failure", is it?

It exists, it survives, it has the vehement support of the population in those countries. Therefore, to them, it is not a "proven failure" at all, it is a proven success. And it really does not matter at all whether you "like" that or not, because your view is irrelevent. The only thing that matters are the views of the people in those countries.

I said that there are millions of people around the world who still admire and believe in the theory of communism. There are.

I said that there are countries in this world which are communist. There are.

I said that those countries are filled with millions of people, and that those millions of people obviously are quite happy with their communist form of government. There are.

The very obvious proof of this is apparent to anyone who even bothers to look at these communist societies, such as Laos, Vietnam, Cuba.

If life in these countries was so supposedly horrific, there would be widespread opposition movements, demonstrations, passive and active resistance to the government's authority. There is none. There would be political uprisings, spontaneous movements of opposition. There are none. There is utterly, literally, no opposition to the communist governments whatsoever in these countries - organized or not. Instead, there is massive support for the government and for the Communist way of life.

Outsiders who come in to these countries and attempt to stir up trouble or foment unrest are quickly arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. When they try to rally the people against the government, the people instead respond by turning them in to the government, calling the police, testifying against them, aiding the government in getting convictions.

Why is this the case? Because the people support their communist governments. They don't want to be "liberate". They don't want to be invaded and in fact will violently fight against any such so-called "liberation".

By the way, Phil: Our system of government here in the U.S. is also non-democratic; It's called a republic. But they didn't teach you that in public school either, did they?

Of course they did. We are a democratic republic. We also have freedom of speech, and we have the right to believe in anything we choose to. We have a right to believe in socialism or communism if we choose to. We also have a right to adopt and pass so-called "socialist" laws if we decide to, and you can't do anything to stop that other than lobby or vote against them. But they didn't teach you that at the kitchen table either, did they?

Ian in Calgary

Phil, you might want to try to find a better example of paradise than Saudi Arabia.

Actually, no, it's a perfect example. The Saudi people are quite comfortable with living in a society organized around the Koran, a society that is one of the wealthiest on Earth, a place where everyone has a free university education, where everyone has free health care. That is their idea of Paradise. It really doesn't matter whether it's "your" idea of Paradise or not, because your views are unimportant. The only views on the subject that matter are those of the Saudi people, and they pretty much love their King and Royal Family.

It's their King, it's their society, it's their choice and decisions to make, it is absolutely not "your" choice or "your" decision and it never will be, either.

Again, some things are just too apparently obvious for some people to grasp: if the Saudi people did not like their King, their Royal Family, their system of government organized around the Koran, they would rise up and overthrow it and replace it with some other form of government. They do not. They love their King, they support the Royal Family, they support a society organized around the Koran.

By any measure they are happy, they are healthy, they are fabulously wealthy. They absolutely do not want to be "just like" Amerrica or any other Western society. They absolutely do not want to be "liberated" by you or anybody else. They will very violently and actively resist any attempted "liberation" by westerners, whom they view as corrupt amoral infidels.

In fact, when you come right down to it, pretty much the only people who ever seriously opposed and fought against the Saudi Royal Family, was al-Qaeda. And they did so because they actually, seriously believed that Saudi society was TOO WESTERNIZED and TOO LIBERAL.

Again, it really doesn't matter whether you happen to "like" their form of government or not. It's totally none of your business. It's not "your" "decision" to make. You are not a Saudi, you are not a Muslim, you don't live there, you are not a part of their society, therefore your views are irrelevent. If the Saudi people decide (as they apparently have, because there is virtually no opposition to the Saudi Royal Family's rule) that they are happy with their society and their form of government, then that's really all you need to know. That's their right, to decide what kind of society they want. It's absolutely NOT your "right" to decide that for them.

Oh, and Monaco being a principality & not a duchy, its sovereign is a prince, not a duke, Mr. Brilliant.

It's governed by a Royal Family, and I did correctly identify Monaco as a Principality, not a "Duchy". Again, perhaps reading and English language comprehension are not your thang.

Lefties have always tried to foist Nazism & Fascism off on the right, but I fail to see how a command economy can legitimately be considered right-wing.

Ohh, you fail to see a great many things, most of them deliberately, no doubt.

Right-wing extremist RePUGs have always desperately tried to foist Nazism off onto the left, because as usual they are professional liars who are desperate to try to "rehabilitate" the Right and try to smirch, obscure and wipe away the stain of Nazism from the Right. But they never can, they always lose, they always fail, because outside of a bunch of delusional easily-brainwashed clieless wonders in America who get their views from FAUX Noise, nobody else in the world is stupid enough to associate Nazism with the Left. Everyone else in thbe entire world knows full well that nazism, with its support of Big Business and corporatism and crushing of unions and working people was exclusively the province of the Right.

Surly_Curmudgen

@ Dennis Price and Phil; You both seem to glory in the ignorance that results from a public school education.

On the contrary, we present facts and evidence. You seem to glory in deliberate ignorance and extremist RePUG desperation, in your desperation to posthomously convert every tyrant who ever lived into being "left wing". You are a shining example of what happens when paranoid delusional people go off their meds, which is exactly why psychiatric care will be covered under ObamaCare.

Your arguments have the flavor of wikipedia, a source that is only valid for scientific facts.

Your "arguments", if one can call them that, smack of right-wing desperation.

I just read the article on Nazis. The author went to great length trying to disassociate the left from the Nazis and instead tied them to the left, the right, the middle, the communists, the military to everything in the world including a minor god from the Indian subcontinent.

Actually the Left does not "need" to "disassociate" from the Nazis because it has never, ever in all of recorded history been "associated" with the Nazis in the first place. Any first-year Political Science 101 student could patiently explain to evena simpleton such as yourself that Nazism / Fascism are on the entirely opposite side of the political spectrum from socialism / communism. The fact that you fail to grasp this very simple fact marks you as an idiologically driven imbecile who probably gets his so-called "facs" piped into his cranium via FAUX News people, who rabidly slather the words "socialism-Nazism-Facism" into every sentence in a dim-bulb effort to convince other similar simpletons that they are "all the same thing" when in fact they could not be more different.

In case nobody has ever explained it to you, the USSR was on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum from the Nazis. The USSR was socialist, all power resided in the people and their representatives in the Communist party. The Nazis were Fascists, all power resided in The State and in the Corporations whom the Nazis supported and nurtured. The socialists broke up the big landholdings and distributed the land, they also broke up the corporations and nurtured community-owned communes. The Fascists vested all power in the great corporations which they retained while breaking strikes by the working class. It ought to be obvious to even a clueless person such as yourself that these were vast and polar-opposite differences, but clearly you have not been rational or sane for some time so such patient explanations are probably wasted on a mentally ill individual such as yourself.

The Nazis and the USSR went to war against each other precisely because they were polar opposites of each other in every way.

Please note that the Nazis did not go to war against "themselves". The war was between Communists versus Fascists. It was not between "Russian Nazis versus German Nazis".

I realize that most people already "get" that fact, and in fact any first year university student in Western Europe could probably explain this to you, but it's pretty obvious that you would fail any such class, seeing as how you probably already think you "know better than" the person teaching the class.

Please seek psychiatric help at your earliest convenience. It is obvious that you are in desperate need of it.

Ultimately you want to be asking yourself, do I really want to support the party that is being used as a facade by those desiring the destruction of this nation. That party is the Democrat party.

Please get off the meth and seek psychiatric help. Yes, I do want to continue to support the Democratic Party and yes, I will continue to do so whether you like it or not. I suggest that you "deal with" that because Obama is going to win the election and whip your RePUG butt in the process.

Surly_Curmudgen

Here is a very patient and dumbed-down explanation of the differences between socialism and fascism / nazism. Perhaps even you can manage to grasp it, though I doubt it will have any impact or effect on your Lush Dumbulb-inspired insane rantings.

Hitler & Socialism

Many conservatives insist that the Nazis were an example of a 'socialist' government as part of their effort to discredit socialism and leftist policies in general. This is rather like using the example of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic, to try to discredit democracy: it demonstrates the speaker's inability to comprehend reality.

Silent Bob explains how and why the Nazi party was not particularly socialist:

The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism.

Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht.

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power.

The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers.

According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able... to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule but they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor.

It's true that the Nazis tried to develop an ideology of socialism -- one based on Christianity, in fact. Part of their party platform was the idea that the public need should be put before private greed, and this principle was part of the statement of how they were a Christian political party:

"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession. It fights the spirit of Jewish materialism within us and without us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our Volk can only take place from within, on the basis of the principle: public need comes before private greed."

In reality, though, Nazi policies did not reflect anything that looks like socialism. How can anyone describe a government that abolishes the right to strike or engage in collective bargaining as "socialist"? Mere opposition to "Jewish materialism" or "Jewish capitalism" doesn't make one a socialist.

Nathan Newman explains a recent example of how unionization is suppressed in America: unions picketing a company aren't allowed to ask other unions to support them and refuse to work as well:

Most progressives don't fully understand that if a union asks other workers to help them during a strike, they have often broken the law. That act of speech-- asking for help -- is an illegal act.

You hear people prattle on about American Exceptionalism-- that US workers are individualists and company-oriented, which is why we don't have broader labor unity or general strikes as you often see in European countries.

The answer is far more prosaic. In the US, the First Amendment has been declared null and void at the workplace door and any attempt to ask for labor unity is a crime. It's really hard to have broad-based unity when you can't ask for it without finding yourself in court.

American conservatives are concerned that this nation not come too close to the "socialism" of Nazi Germany, but it is the laws which work against collective bargaining and union activity which cause America to begin to resemble Nazi Germany, not any so-called socialist policies of this or that leftist group. Socialism might be an exceedingly bad way to organize an economy, but criticizing the Nazis is not the way to make this point.

h t t p://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/31/hitler-socialism.htm

@Phil

You have demonstrated much, much more patience with Surly then I could have ever shown him. You are to be commended.

Phil,

You identified Monaco as a principality governed by a duke. He's Prince Albert, not Duke Albert. Read your own posts before belligerently (do you have any other mode?) accusing others of not being able to grasp basic English.

Ian in Calgary

I identified Monaco as a principality. It is one. Whether it is governed by prince or a duke is pretty much irrelevent to the discussion, but I can see (and it's obvious to anyone watching) why you would seek to derail the discussion with nattering arguments about quibbles and petty details.

The point of the discussion, which you were obviously trying very hard to ignore, is that Monaco is not a "demcracy". It is basically a family-owned and family-ruled country governed by a monarchy. And the people, the citizenry LIKE IT THAT WAY. There is no opposition movement in Monaco, no swelling anti-goverment protest, no nothing. The people there are healthy, and the people there are happy. They have a high standard of living, in a peaceful little country. If you happen not to "like" or "prefer" their particular style of government, that's really just too damned bad for you. If you don't like the decision they have made as a people to have a monarchy style of government with no elections, then there is a simple solution, isn't there - don't go there, stay out of their country, it's pretty much a "given" that they will not miss you.

Pretty much any country that doesn't espouse western-style democracy is a hellhole.

Bull****. You have pretty much demonstrated that you have never actually been anywhere outside of North America and that you know nothing about the outside world. I have already given you several examples of countries that do not espouse "western-style democracy" and yet which are fine little jewels of countries, not "hellholes" as you claim. If you had ever been to any of these countries you would know and understand just how preposterous and not grounded in reality your statements are.

Monaco, for instance, is a little jewel of a country. Even though Prince Albert II is a constitutional monarch, he still has immense political power. The House of Grimaldi have ruled Monaco, with brief interruptions, since 1297. Monaco boasts the world's highest GDP nominal per capita at $153,177, GDP PPP per capita at $132,571, and GNI per capita at $183,150. Monaco also has the world's highest life expectancy at nearly 90 years, and the lowest unemployment rate at 0%, with over 48,000 workers who commute from France and Italy each day. For the third year in a row, Monaco in 2011 had the world's most expensive real estate market, at $65,600 per square metre. According to the CIA World Factbook, Monaco has the world's lowest poverty rate and the highest number of millionaires and billionaires per capita in the world.

Hardly the description of a "hell hole", but then facts and understanding of the outside world do not appear to be your strong suit.

And, once again, you manage to neatly miss the entire point: whether a place is supposedly a "hellhole" in your, personal, western-centric viewpoint is irrelevent; it only matters if it's a "hellhole" in the views of the people who actually live there.

Cuba, for example, is often denounced and criticized as a so-called "hell hole" - generally, by ignorant right-wing westerners who in any case have almost never actually been there. Yet Cuba routinely lands on Top Ten lists for having healthy, well-educated people; an efficient healthcare system that delivers results better than many westernized countries and much better than those of America; and a low incidence of poverty. If asked to choose between leaving and staying in Cuba, over 85% of Cuba's population would undoubtedly elect to stay. Despite having a Communist system, Cubans can actually elect members of their community to represent them, and regularly do so, including Fidel Castro himself.

American right-wingers despise Cuba's choice of government and wish to overthrow Cuba's governing power; they are well-known for having tried (and failed, absurdly) to illegally assassinate Fidel Castro. On occasion, the American right-wingers have sent dupes, thugs and covert provocateurs to try to stir up trouble or act against the Cuban government. In every single case, with virtually no exceptions, these covert agents have been caught -- turned in by the very same Cuban people they claimed to be "liberating". Why? Because the Cuban people support their government. They support Communism. And they support and love Fidel Castro.

Undoubtedly the greatest frustration to right-wing Americans comes from their incessant demands for "elections"; their frustration comes from knowing full well that Castro would undoubtedly and easily win any election one could hold in Cuba. Thus, western critics are full of lying hypocrisy; to American RePUGs, the only truly "fair" or "acceptable" election is one that Castro loses.

Phil,

I never claimed it was a major point, I merely pointed out your error in terminology. Since you're pretty quick to jump on anybody else's errors, it seemed appropriate. And your inability to acknowledge even that minor error certainly reinforces my opinion of your arrogance & stridency.

Monaco is a pretty dishonest example to use. For one thing, it has a small, self-selecting population catering mainly to the very wealthy & their factotums. Nobody is there simply because they were born there & have no feasible options. And for another, Prince Albert doesn't exactly have the dictatorial powers you claim. He may wield more political power than Queens Elizabeth & Margrethe, but Monaco is still essentially a constitutional democracy.

As for Cuba, "little jewels of countries" don't normally have people risking their lives to escape, do they?

You have me dead to rights on being an ignorant provincial bumpkin, though. Although I do have two university degrees & a professional designation, have been to Europe seven times & Africa once, & have taken classes in three languages besides English (casually, not intensively, & I make no claim of fluency). I don't claim them to be outstanding accomplishments, just that you may have assumed too much. Oh, I also prefer theatre, opera & ballet to professional wrestling & monster truck rallies, just in case you were going to make that assumption about me, too.

Anyway, since it's fruitless to argue with one who can't entertain the possibility he could ever be wrong about anything, or even that someone who disagrees with him could possibly be anything but a complete idiot, but mostly because I'm bored with it, I'm done with this. So go ahead, have the last word. I'm sure you can't resist.

Ian in Calgary

Yes, I erred in saying that Monaco was governed by a Duke, when it's actually governed by a Prince. Please forgive me for that shocking error in failing to fact-check the governmental structure of Monaco before commenting. I'm sure it was of vital and ccentral importance to the discussion. No, wait, strike that, it was a meaningless factoid of no real importance to anyone except you.

I don't find Monaco to be " a pretty dishonest example to use". It is the most densely populated country in the world and has a population of almost 37,000 people, any of whom would be free to move and live elsewhere if life in Monaco were all that terrifying in a place that does not directly elect a leader and where one family has basically continuously ruled over the place for close to 800 years.

As for Cuba, "little jewels of countries" don't normally have people risking their lives to escape, do they?

Actually yes, they occasionally do. A lot of people from supposedly "better, freer" countries risk their lives for a lot less. So far the number of would-be immigrants from Mexico who have perished in the deserts of Arizona is headed upward of 200,a number that seems to exceed the number of dead Cubans. Mexico is a free-enterprise capitalist country, a democratic country with regular elections and a growing middle class with all of the usual western acoutrements - PlayStations, X-Boxes, cell phones, etc. Yet still they die in the deserts. If life under democracy and capitalism is so wonderful in Mexico, why do so many Mexicans apparently risk their lives to flee?

You have me dead to rights on being an ignorant provincial bumpkin, though. Although I do have two university degrees & a professional designation, have been to Europe seven times & Africa once, & have taken classes in three languages besides English (casually, not intensively, & I make no claim of fluency). I don't claim them to be outstanding accomplishments, just that you may have assumed too much. Oh, I also prefer theatre, opera & ballet to professional wrestling & monster truck rallies, just in case you were going to make that assumption about me, too.

Have you ever been to Vietnam? It's a beautiful, beautiful, haunting place, languid and lush. The people there seem quite happy with their Communist government and express no dissatisfaction, nor do they show any desire to come to The Land Of Big Macs. They seem startlingly happy with their lot in life, with their form of government, with their society.

They don't much like you. They don't wish to "be like" you.

And if you are nice enough to them, they just might tell you that they have finally forgiven the West for having spent ten years killing over a million Vietnamese and trying to force a puppet regime upon them that they didn't want, didn't support and didn't agree with.