Made by who? An ACORN plant sent to the audience to stir trouble for those at the TEA parties... One wack job who had a Bush is Hitler sign when Bush was in office... Popeye himself?
Bush is Hitler... How many of those signs did you see at left wing rallies where political mercenaries like ACORN were paid to protest? I don't recall Popeye or any of the other Progressives feeling the need to defend themselves from the crazies who showed up at their rallies.
Its a free country and all kinds of people show up. Popeye, and the MSM, are simply trying to stereotype everyone who was there as racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, nut-jobs because they cannot respond intellectually to the messege... All they know how to do is attack the messengers.
Pay close attention to what I'm saying since you totally missed it last time...
Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto, followed a very differnt ideology from that of Vladmir Lennin. Lenninism is what you came to know as Communism, the big military parades, the iron curtain, gulags, and all the other dictatorial expressions of a statist regime.
Karl Marx had an ultimate goal, Utopian Socialism. In order to obtain that goal, Marx saw a strong centralized government as the quickest means to reach that end. Grow government to where it can destroy the "shackles" of Capitalism, religion and traditoin, then disband the centralized government.
Like I said, read the writings of Marx and not just his manifesto. Read about Lennin and his vision for a Soviet Super State. Lennin thought Marx went wrong by wanting to abolish the strong centralized government once capitalism, religion and tradition were gone... because once those were gone, controlling the population would be so much easier.
Here is a quote from Lennin: "It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."
Marx: "The state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities."
Just for contrast, here's a quote from Obama, complaining that the Constitution places limits on government and impedes the redistribution of wealth:
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."
You are being naive if you think everyone understands that such a philosophy is doomed to fail. Next time you hear one of the Progressives complaining that the rich don't pay their "fair" share, realize that they are pushing for that philosophy of massive wealth redistribution.
