Bernie Sanders Touts Marxist Economists

[Uncensored2008]

The earlier attempts were premature in that the capitalist mode of production had not yet created the conditions for its success. That has had a negative and lasting impact. But history is not complete. If the capitalist mode of production doesn't bring us our ruin first there might still be time for mankind to realize a new and improved socioeconomic relationship.

That is a common excuse for the failures of Marxism, but the reality that 150 years of history has revealed is that Marxism fails to account for the evolutionary impetus to survive. What Marx proposed defies the inherent nature of man. We evolved to hunt, gather, plant, and fabricate to ensure our own survival and that of our progeny, this is hard coded through a million years of hominid evolution into every person.

Communism is a great idea, for a colony of ants or a hive of bees, but it is a disaster when applied to humans, because we are not insects who sacrifice for the hive or colony.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The understanding exists. It was left to us by Marx. There is no formula. At some point in time we will evolve into a new socioeconomic relationship just as we have already evolved from others. Capitalism was not a gift from god.

If so, it will be in several million years, as what you advocate is the transformation of man into a social insect where drones mindlessly serve the colony. The human of the 21st century is an autonomous being and Marxism is wholly incapable of serving such creatures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not convinced that people are scared away from him. 99% of the fascist left have never read Marx and spout a comic book version of what they think socialism is. Most of the left are simply stupid and believe that Socialism will give them something for nothing.

Uh huh. And the vast majority on the right believes the same also due to not having read Marx. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding about Marxist thought spread throughout our society and no effort to seek an understanding. We are a nation full of ignorant people, which is why the bourgeois have been able to dominate our culture and our politics unmolested for so long.

If they had ever read Marx, they would find he had a VERY different view and advocated the elimination, the killing of the "useless eaters."

And here is yet another scare tactic, of which you are not convinced is effective at deterring people from Marx. Where is your citation from Marx's literature that proves your statement anything other than a scare tactic?

It is true however that Marx did not believe the distribution of the means of consumption was to be treated independently from the distribution of the means of production. He did expect people to contribute to society and that they would receive back from society the equal to which they contributed. All of which only makes perfect sense.

Scare tactics?
It's historical facts.
MILLIONS die under communism.
Why?
Simply because they had a different political view.

Most scholars would argue that Marx never advocated the slaughter of political foes the way Lenin did. But the dictatorship of the proletarians described a totalitarian structure that would tolerate no opposition, so I would say the 65 million people butchered by Stalin, the 35 million butchered by Mao, the 4 million murdered by Lenin, the 40% of the population savagely murdered by Pol Pot are all legitimate representations of what Marx advocated.

 

[peach174]

I'm not convinced that people are scared away from him. 99% of the fascist left have never read Marx and spout a comic book version of what they think socialism is. Most of the left are simply stupid and believe that Socialism will give them something for nothing.

Uh huh. And the vast majority on the right believes the same also due to not having read Marx. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding about Marxist thought spread throughout our society and no effort to seek an understanding. We are a nation full of ignorant people, which is why the bourgeois have been able to dominate our culture and our politics unmolested for so long.

If they had ever read Marx, they would find he had a VERY different view and advocated the elimination, the killing of the "useless eaters."

And here is yet another scare tactic, of which you are not convinced is effective at deterring people from Marx. Where is your citation from Marx's literature that proves your statement anything other than a scare tactic?

It is true however that Marx did not believe the distribution of the means of consumption was to be treated independently from the distribution of the means of production. He did expect people to contribute to society and that they would receive back from society the equal to which they contributed. All of which only makes perfect sense.

Scare tactics?
It's historical facts.
MILLIONS die under communism.
Why?
Simply because they had a different political view.

Most scholars would argue that Marx never advocated the slaughter of political foes the way Lenin did. But the dictatorship of the proletarians described a totalitarian structure that would tolerate no opposition, so I would say the 65 million people butchered by Stalin, the 35 million butchered by Mao, the 4 million murdered by Lenin, the 40% of the population savagely murdered by Pol Pot are all legitimate representations of what Marx advocated.

I agree ,but his lack of understanding how basic economics work, just like Sanders doesn't ,caused millions to starve to death. Same thing happened in Venezuela where no one had the basic supplies they need.
No matter which form is used in communism and socialism or a combination of both, it always ends in harm to the citizens and never has worked. It never will. It always stifles growth.

 

[Tehon]

How is honest examination a "scare tactic?" Any system of economics must have inputs to feed the outputs. Marx was not stupid, he was an intellectual. He grasped this simple concept well. He also grasped that without dollars as the motivation factor to engage in labor, then something else must be. In human history only two things motivate men to work for others; the promise of reward or the fear of punishment. Marx made clear in Vol. 2 of Capital that what the Proletariat would replace dollars with is the whip.

Claiming Marx advocated for the elimination of useless eaters and not providing the proper citation is not an honest examination.

Marx never advocated that men receive back from society what they contribute, such would be capitalism. Marx advocated that people contribute in accordance to their ability. What they receive is based on their need, not their contribution.

You lie and unlike you I can provide the proper citation.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

 

[Tehon]

Marx never advocated that men receive back from society what they contribute, such would be capitalism.

Here you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding Marx's critique of capitalism. Those who own the means of production, the capitalist, extracts more from society than what he/she inputs. Basic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sanders brother is the real socialist/commie...
Bernie Sanders Touts Marxist Economists
America's most prominent Marxist economist backs Bernie
February 23, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In response to criticism of his financial proposals, the Bernie Sanders campaign posted a list of “economists and financial experts” who support his plans.

Left-wing websites describe it as a list of the “nation’s top economists”, but it includes financial planners, some with no degree in economics at all, an instructor at Chemeketa Community College, and PhD candidates, including Mohammad Moeini-Feizabadi, an Iranian PhD candidate studying Marxian Political Economy. Also present is Michael Meeropol, the son of the Stalinist atom bomb traitors.

...

The focus on Marxism is pervasive among many of the names on the Bernie Sanders economist list.

John Weeks is described as a Marxist who has called for the “nationalization of finance” so his appearance on the list is not terribly surprising. Weeks is a Sanders fan and wonders whether “his class-focused political message can realize the long term dream of American populist progressives.”

Antonio Callari is the author of “Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the New World Order,” Nancy Folbre has been described as a Marxist and Yavuz Yaşar is the author of “Teaching Macroeconomics by Bringing Marx into the Classroom.” Ilene Grabel appeared at Marxism Now, a forum sponsored by Rethinking Marxism, a publication to which many on the Sanders list had contributed.

...

Bernie Sanders supporters are told that they will only be getting the same style of Socialism that has failed in Western Europe, but it is disturbingly possible that they will instead be getting the style of Socialism that had to be violently overthrown in Eastern Europe.

Larry Sanders, the brother of Bernie who had a huge influence on his politics, said that his brother will “flex his muscles” and go big, no matter what Congress or even the Democratic Party might say. According to him, Bernie Sanders believes that “the cause of socialism” is more important than anything else. He also describes turning on Bernie to his studies of “Marx and Hegel” to “help him get started.”

A discerning reader may have noticed that many of the names on the list of economists are foreign. There is an extensive organization abroad aiding the Bernie Sanders campaign. It includes the “Corbynists,” the worst elements of the radical left in the UK, who are openly supportive of Islamic terrorism, hate America and Israel, and promote a radical Marxist economic program. They are considered well to the left even within Labour. Their support means that Bernie Sanders isn’t just too radical for the Democratic Party, but for many European Socialists.

...


Bernie Sanders Touts Marxist Economists

Hate, fear and ignorance is the tag line for this thread.

Q. What historical events influenced Marx and Engles

Hint: Did Marx and Engels create the revolutions of 1848 with their polemics, or did the Authoritarianism (the Monarchies) create the zeitgeist of the time?

 

[bripat9643]

it is because Marx's socialism is used as a scare tactic in that it will lead to communism.

Marx legitimized what was a discredited belief, purely because he was educated and could present the ideas in a logical and scientific fashion. Marx is representative of Socialism because he was the most, not least, rational of socialist thought.

Marx had some interesting things to say about the capitalist mode of production. Things that are problematic for the rulers of society should people start examining them. This is the reason Americans are systematically scared away from him.

I'm not convinced that people are scared away from him. 99% of the fascist left have never read Marx and spout a comic book version of what they think socialism is. Most of the left are simply stupid and believe that Socialism will give them something for nothing. If they had ever read Marx, they would find he had a VERY different view and advocated the elimination, the killing of the "useless eaters."

So why did Marx's dialectical materialism never come to pass?

It never came to pass because it's bullshit, obviously.

 

[bripat9643]

Marx never advocated that men receive back from society what they contribute, such would be capitalism.

Here you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding Marx's critique of capitalism. Those who own the means of production, the capitalist, extracts more from society than what he/she inputs. Basic.

That's meaningless horseshit, of course.

 

[Tehon]

Marx never advocated that men receive back from society what they contribute, such would be capitalism.

Here you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding Marx's critique of capitalism. Those who own the means of production, the capitalist, extracts more from society than what he/she inputs. Basic.

That's meaningless horseshit, of course.

Of course it's meaningless to you, you're clueless.

 

[bripat9643]

Marx never advocated that men receive back from society what they contribute, such would be capitalism.

Here you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding Marx's critique of capitalism. Those who own the means of production, the capitalist, extracts more from society than what he/she inputs. Basic.

That's meaningless horseshit, of course.

Of course it's meaningless to you, you're clueless.

It's meaningless to anyone with a brain. You value the effort of the capitalist at zero, so you automatically say he gets more than he puts in. Your evaluation is worth what your education is worth: nothing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

it is because Marx's socialism is used as a scare tactic in that it will lead to communism.

Marx legitimized what was a discredited belief, purely because he was educated and could present the ideas in a logical and scientific fashion. Marx is representative of Socialism because he was the most, not least, rational of socialist thought.

Marx had some interesting things to say about the capitalist mode of production. Things that are problematic for the rulers of society should people start examining them. This is the reason Americans are systematically scared away from him.

I'm not convinced that people are scared away from him. 99% of the fascist left have never read Marx and spout a comic book version of what they think socialism is. Most of the left are simply stupid and believe that Socialism will give them something for nothing. If they had ever read Marx, they would find he had a VERY different view and advocated the elimination, the killing of the "useless eaters."

So why did Marx's dialectical materialism never come to pass?

It never came to pass because it's bullshit, obviously.

You're incredibly ignorant. I'd suggest that you find a library - that's a place with lots of books - and check out The Worldy Philosophers by Heilbroner.

I'll help, for those who are not willfully ignorant and or totally brainwashed:

About The Worldly Philosophers

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Claiming Marx advocated for the elimination of useless eaters and not providing the proper citation is not an honest examination.

Demanding that I prove water is wet does not help your argument.

Marx based his view of useless eaters on American social theorist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) classic Theory of the Leisure Class. Marx wrote extensively about the Nobles who did nothing but collect rents

{This surplus value is then distributed to the different sections of capital in proportion to their share of the total capital. This process of division takes place through the competitive struggle in the market. If one particular section of capital receives profit at higher than the average rate then capital will move from other sections of the economy to increase the production of the commodity returning the higher rate until its price falls to the “price of production”—that is, the level at which profit is received at the average rate.

The equalisation of the rate of profit across the different sections of capital depends on the ability of capital to move freely. However, there may be conditions which prevent this. For example, if the ownership of land is monopolised, capital will not be able to freely move into agricultural production if profits there were to go above the average rate. This would mean that agricultural producers would be able to charge above the “price of production”. The higher than average return would be divided between the landowner in the form of “rent” and profit to the capitalist farmer.} Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Thirty-One

You lie and unlike you I can provide the proper citation.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

Don't be a fucking retard, it's unbecoming.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (French: De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.[2] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[3][4]

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, someone dug through that list of 170 in order to find two or three that they thought were good candidates to use to demonize Bernie?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Claiming Marx advocated for the elimination of useless eaters and not providing the proper citation is not an honest examination.

Demanding that I prove water is wet does not help your argument.

Marx based his view of useless eaters on American social theorist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) classic Theory of the Leisure Class. Marx wrote extensively about the Nobles who did nothing but collect rents

{This surplus value is then distributed to the different sections of capital in proportion to their share of the total capital. This process of division takes place through the competitive struggle in the market. If one particular section of capital receives profit at higher than the average rate then capital will move from other sections of the economy to increase the production of the commodity returning the higher rate until its price falls to the “price of production”—that is, the level at which profit is received at the average rate.

The equalisation of the rate of profit across the different sections of capital depends on the ability of capital to move freely. However, there may be conditions which prevent this. For example, if the ownership of land is monopolised, capital will not be able to freely move into agricultural production if profits there were to go above the average rate. This would mean that agricultural producers would be able to charge above the “price of production”. The higher than average return would be divided between the landowner in the form of “rent” and profit to the capitalist farmer.} Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Thirty-One

You lie and unlike you I can provide the proper citation.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

Don't be a fucking retard, it's unbecoming.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (French: De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.[2] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[3][4]

Friedrich Engels became a socialist after witnessing the horrors of unbridled capitalist exploitation in the UK during the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Claiming Marx advocated for the elimination of useless eaters and not providing the proper citation is not an honest examination.

Demanding that I prove water is wet does not help your argument.

Marx based his view of useless eaters on American social theorist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) classic Theory of the Leisure Class. Marx wrote extensively about the Nobles who did nothing but collect rents

{This surplus value is then distributed to the different sections of capital in proportion to their share of the total capital. This process of division takes place through the competitive struggle in the market. If one particular section of capital receives profit at higher than the average rate then capital will move from other sections of the economy to increase the production of the commodity returning the higher rate until its price falls to the “price of production”—that is, the level at which profit is received at the average rate.

The equalisation of the rate of profit across the different sections of capital depends on the ability of capital to move freely. However, there may be conditions which prevent this. For example, if the ownership of land is monopolised, capital will not be able to freely move into agricultural production if profits there were to go above the average rate. This would mean that agricultural producers would be able to charge above the “price of production”. The higher than average return would be divided between the landowner in the form of “rent” and profit to the capitalist farmer.} Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Thirty-One

You lie and unlike you I can provide the proper citation.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

Don't be a fucking retard, it's unbecoming.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (French: De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.[2] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[3][4]

Friedrich Engels became a socialist after witnessing the horrors of unbridled capitalist exploitation in the UK during the Industrial Revolution.

Engels was the original spoiled frat boy, son of a rich factory owner who's jealousy of a father vastly superior to him drove his hatred. A professional student who never did a days work in his life and thought he was champion of those he viewed with disdain. Johnny Depp of an earlier age.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Claiming Marx advocated for the elimination of useless eaters and not providing the proper citation is not an honest examination.

Demanding that I prove water is wet does not help your argument.

Marx based his view of useless eaters on American social theorist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) classic Theory of the Leisure Class. Marx wrote extensively about the Nobles who did nothing but collect rents

{This surplus value is then distributed to the different sections of capital in proportion to their share of the total capital. This process of division takes place through the competitive struggle in the market. If one particular section of capital receives profit at higher than the average rate then capital will move from other sections of the economy to increase the production of the commodity returning the higher rate until its price falls to the “price of production”—that is, the level at which profit is received at the average rate.

The equalisation of the rate of profit across the different sections of capital depends on the ability of capital to move freely. However, there may be conditions which prevent this. For example, if the ownership of land is monopolised, capital will not be able to freely move into agricultural production if profits there were to go above the average rate. This would mean that agricultural producers would be able to charge above the “price of production”. The higher than average return would be divided between the landowner in the form of “rent” and profit to the capitalist farmer.} Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Thirty-One

You lie and unlike you I can provide the proper citation.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

Don't be a fucking retard, it's unbecoming.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (French: De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.[2] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[3][4]

Friedrich Engels became a socialist after witnessing the horrors of unbridled capitalist exploitation in the UK during the Industrial Revolution.

Engels was the original spoiled frat boy, son of a rich factory owner who's jealousy of a father vastly superior to him drove his hatred. A professional student who never did a days work in his life and thought he was champion of those he viewed with disdain. Johnny Depp of an earlier age.

Ah, so your position is that you'd be happy to see the conditions of 19th century industry brought back.

fascinating.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Back in 1910 a retired Republican president made a plea that Americans should not be afraid of the word "socialism" In fact, TR said that we should not be afraid to adopt certain principles of socialism, The former Republican president thought socialism part of the future.

Thats why I never understood TR's appeal to conservatives. He was the prototype big government stinking Progressive.

/---- Well there are certain aspects of any political agenda that are good. That's how they sell it. The Nazis got the trains to run on time by shooting any engineer who was a few minutes late. Maybe we need that for the Long Island Railroad.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[regent]

During the red scare it seemed essential that Americans understand what socialism and communism were all about. Instead both systems were ignored in schools and classrooms and McCarthyism, politics and fear took over. For a time it was a Republican bonanza with that party able to label anything it didn't want, such as Social Security as leading directly to communism.

 

[bripat9643]

it is because Marx's socialism is used as a scare tactic in that it will lead to communism.

Marx legitimized what was a discredited belief, purely because he was educated and could present the ideas in a logical and scientific fashion. Marx is representative of Socialism because he was the most, not least, rational of socialist thought.

Marx had some interesting things to say about the capitalist mode of production. Things that are problematic for the rulers of society should people start examining them. This is the reason Americans are systematically scared away from him.

I'm not convinced that people are scared away from him. 99% of the fascist left have never read Marx and spout a comic book version of what they think socialism is. Most of the left are simply stupid and believe that Socialism will give them something for nothing. If they had ever read Marx, they would find he had a VERY different view and advocated the elimination, the killing of the "useless eaters."

So why did Marx's dialectical materialism never come to pass?

It never came to pass because it's bullshit, obviously.

You're incredibly ignorant. I'd suggest that you find a library - that's a place with lots of books - and check out The Worldy Philosophers by Heilbroner.

I'll help, for those who are not willfully ignorant and or totally brainwashed:

About The Worldly Philosophers

Marx wasn't a philosopher, and what makes you think philosophers can't be full of shit? Most of them are, especially Hegel, who was the inspiration for it.

I always marvel at the arrogance of leftwing douche bags like you who believe anyone who disagrees with your flawed understanding of reality must be ignorant.