Democrats Never Met A Communist....

[PoliticalChic]

Since PC can't or won't answer the question, what caused the rise of Socialism and the Progressive Movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, I'll give her the one word answer:

INEQUITY!

Or, the lack of fairness and justice. Which, BTW, is manifest today around the world and in our country with the rise of Callous Conservatism.

My reluctance is based on the fact that you reek with fear when reading the title of the thread, and have tried to change the subject.

"...the rise of Socialism and the Progressive Movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century...
...I have considered starting a thread about just that.....it will center on Hegel, and the fact that many of our Presidents were tutored via German scholars.
It is very different from American thought and attitude.


You should be very careful about endorsing Germanic views of governance.


Now....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

Hegel Smagel. Primary sources, voter registration records from the era are telling, and aren't the product of working men and women reading Hegel or Marx or following the lead of anyone but their stomach and those of their family.

Your efforts to label everyone as a Communist is so '50's, the only fear I might have is that the inequity of the 'teens' will bring labor strive, and make the violence of the 30's look like a snowball fight by pre teens.

That you don't know that you and your ideological friends are the problem which will create what you fear most, is why I'm certain your efforts to intellectualize a rewrite of history is so misguided.

1. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice. Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11."
Coulter




2. Now, you coward....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

They're not so enamored, and you know it and that is one reason, there are several, that I find you to be one of the most dishonest regulars on this message board.

You've made an allegation, prove that liberals, progressives and Democrats are enamored with homicidal philosophies! Even if you can name one, that has no bearing on the millions of Americans you chose to defame.

In fact, character assassination is your game, alone with rewriting history using obscure authors who scholarship is wanting for it is motivated not by looking for a truth, but the want of a dollar.

In academia your conclusions are supported by an Appeal to Authority; maybe your impressed by one or two writers you consider authorities; I'm not, for the non fiction I read has pages and pages of notes and cites from many different sources. Most include primary sources in the citations, letters, photographs, newspapers and magazines, poems and songs of the era - all of which paint a picture for the reader well before the final chapter is written,

This is why I find you to be a phony.

"Even if you can name one..."

You're right, fool....I didn't name one....

I named six.

FDR
Wallace
Truman
Ted Kennedy
Carter
Obama
And assorted members of their administrations.....

Looks like you're the only dishonest one here.

Or....simply the dumbest.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since PC can't or won't answer the question, what caused the rise of Socialism and the Progressive Movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, I'll give her the one word answer:

INEQUITY!

Or, the lack of fairness and justice. Which, BTW, is manifest today around the world and in our country with the rise of Callous Conservatism.

My reluctance is based on the fact that you reek with fear when reading the title of the thread, and have tried to change the subject.

"...the rise of Socialism and the Progressive Movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century...
...I have considered starting a thread about just that.....it will center on Hegel, and the fact that many of our Presidents were tutored via German scholars.
It is very different from American thought and attitude.


You should be very careful about endorsing Germanic views of governance.


Now....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

Hegel Smagel. Primary sources, voter registration records from the era are telling, and aren't the product of working men and women reading Hegel or Marx or following the lead of anyone but their stomach and those of their family.

Your efforts to label everyone as a Communist is so '50's, the only fear I might have is that the inequity of the 'teens' will bring labor strive, and make the violence of the 30's look like a snowball fight by pre teens.

That you don't know that you and your ideological friends are the problem which will create what you fear most, is why I'm certain your efforts to intellectualize a rewrite of history is so misguided.

1. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice. Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11."
Coulter




2. Now, you coward....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

They're not so enamored, and you know it and that is one reason, there are several, that I find you to be one of the most dishonest regulars on this message board.

You've made an allegation, prove that liberals, progressives and Democrats are enamored with homicidal philosophies! Even if you can name one, that has no bearing on the millions of Americans you chose to defame.

In fact, character assassination is your game, alone with rewriting history using obscure authors who scholarship is wanting for it is motivated not by looking for a truth, but the want of a dollar.

In academia your conclusions are supported by an Appeal to Authority; maybe your impressed by one or two writers you consider authorities; I'm not, for the non fiction I read has pages and pages of notes and cites from many different sources. Most include primary sources in the citations, letters, photographs, newspapers and magazines, poems and songs of the era - all of which paint a picture for the reader well before the final chapter is written,

This is why I find you to be a phony.

"Even if you can name one..."

You're right, fool....I didn't name one....

I named six.

FDR
Wallace
Truman
Ted Kennedy
Carter
Obama
And assorted members of their administrations.....

Looks like you're the only dishonest one here.

Or....simply the dumbest.

You're not only a phony and dishonest, you're an asshole. Most callous conservatives are, but you seem to take callousness to a new low. Someone in your past screwed you over, and you've never recovered.

In ALL honesty, get therapy and maybe you can one day pass for a human being.

 

[georgephillip]

A brief history of it's home-base, mother Russia, includes9 million killedin the civil war, 1917-1922; Stalin's regime, 1924-1953, over20 million slaughtered; (Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

Add in the communist spin-offs in China, Cambodia, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc., and the number goes well beyond100 million mothers, fathers, sons, daughters,lives counted as less important than the victory of communism.

You are including the capitalist killing fields of WWI and WWII in those numbers, aren't you? It was capitalist bombs falling on Korea in the early 1950s that killed 30% of ALL Koreans north of the 38th parallel, and it was for-profit capitalist weapons that murdered millions more in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In terms of pure for profit genocide it is hard to top what industrial capitalism inflicted upon the native nations of North and South America.

 

[Wry Catcher]

But is it why you so frequently respond to the lady?

HBH needs to take a writing course, who is the you? If it was directed to me, or not, I'll provide my answer: PC assassinates the character of those long dead, someone needs to challenge her and her efforts to rewrite history.

Now, thank Obama, soon you may be able to take Eng. 101 in a Jr. College for free.

 

[HenryBHough]

Alas, I accept no responsibility for the deficient reading comprehension of others. Wisely is it said: "If the shoe fits, sleep in it."

 

[edthecynic]

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
So saith the American philosopher George Santayana.

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
- George Bernard Shaw

Once again you quote one staunchly in favor of genocide and eugenics.

And once again you lie.

I never lie.....you're simply a fool.

You always lie, even after your lies have been explained to you.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Shaw was mocking Eugenicists, he is a satirist by trade.

In his writings he has his own version of Eugenics called Sahvian Eugenics, where the "Superman" is produced by the MATING choices of women, NO genocide involved, unless in your perverted mind all women are Black Widows who kill their mates after sex.

Try reading "Man and Superman" instead of being so illiterate! And then try thinking for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting liars you admire for their lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My reluctance is based on the fact that you reek with fear when reading the title of the thread, and have tried to change the subject.

"...the rise of Socialism and the Progressive Movement in the late 19th and early 20th Century...
...I have considered starting a thread about just that.....it will center on Hegel, and the fact that many of our Presidents were tutored via German scholars.
It is very different from American thought and attitude.


You should be very careful about endorsing Germanic views of governance.


Now....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

Hegel Smagel. Primary sources, voter registration records from the era are telling, and aren't the product of working men and women reading Hegel or Marx or following the lead of anyone but their stomach and those of their family.

Your efforts to label everyone as a Communist is so '50's, the only fear I might have is that the inequity of the 'teens' will bring labor strive, and make the violence of the 30's look like a snowball fight by pre teens.

That you don't know that you and your ideological friends are the problem which will create what you fear most, is why I'm certain your efforts to intellectualize a rewrite of history is so misguided.

1. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice. Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11."
Coulter




2. Now, you coward....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

They're not so enamored, and you know it and that is one reason, there are several, that I find you to be one of the most dishonest regulars on this message board.

You've made an allegation, prove that liberals, progressives and Democrats are enamored with homicidal philosophies! Even if you can name one, that has no bearing on the millions of Americans you chose to defame.

In fact, character assassination is your game, alone with rewriting history using obscure authors who scholarship is wanting for it is motivated not by looking for a truth, but the want of a dollar.

In academia your conclusions are supported by an Appeal to Authority; maybe your impressed by one or two writers you consider authorities; I'm not, for the non fiction I read has pages and pages of notes and cites from many different sources. Most include primary sources in the citations, letters, photographs, newspapers and magazines, poems and songs of the era - all of which paint a picture for the reader well before the final chapter is written,

This is why I find you to be a phony.

"Even if you can name one..."

You're right, fool....I didn't name one....

I named six.

FDR
Wallace
Truman
Ted Kennedy
Carter
Obama
And assorted members of their administrations.....

Looks like you're the only dishonest one here.

Or....simply the dumbest.

You're not only a phony and dishonest, you're an asshole. Most callous conservatives are, but you seem to take callousness to a new low. Someone in your past screwed you over, and you've never recovered.

In ALL honesty, get therapy and maybe you can one day pass for a human being.

Aha!

There it is!

. Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

Sort of a Liberal white flag.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
So saith the American philosopher George Santayana.

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
- George Bernard Shaw

Once again you quote one staunchly in favor of genocide and eugenics.

And once again you lie.

I never lie.....you're simply a fool.

You always lie, even after your lies have been explained to you.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Shaw was mocking Eugenicists, he is a satirist by trade.

In his writings he has his own version of Eugenics called Sahvian Eugenics, where the "Superman" is produced by the mating choices of women, NO genocide involved, unless in your perverted mind all women are Black Widows who kill their mates after sex.

Try reading "Man and Superman" instead of being so illiterate! And then try thinking for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting liars you admire for their lies.

You're a moron.

I provided the genocidal maniac explaining it in his own words, and you simple squeeze your eyes shut, cover your ears, and whine "is not, is nooooootttttt! waa waa waa!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Alas, I accept no responsibility for the deficient reading comprehension of others. Wisely is it said: "If the shoe fits, sleep in it."

LOL

 

[edthecynic]

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
- George Bernard Shaw

Once again you quote one staunchly in favor of genocide and eugenics.

And once again you lie.

I never lie.....you're simply a fool.

You always lie, even after your lies have been explained to you.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Shaw was mocking Eugenicists, he is a satirist by trade.

In his writings he has his own version of Eugenics called Sahvian Eugenics, where the "Superman" is produced by the mating choices of women, NO genocide involved, unless in your perverted mind all women are Black Widows who kill their mates after sex.

Try reading "Man and Superman" instead of being so illiterate! And then try thinking for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting liars you admire for their lies.

You're a moron.

I provided the genocidal maniac explaining it in his own words, and you simple squeeze your eyes shut, cover your ears, and whine "is not, is nooooootttttt! waa waa waa!"

You provided your deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's satirizing Eugenics, which you have done in the past several times and were corrected every time, yet you still parrot the same lie. You can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying after the first time your lie was corrected, so all your continuing lies are premeditated.

Again, if you had ever actually read any of Shaw's literature, you would know there is no genocide in Shavian Eugenics. Women are not Black Widows, and you are a pathological liar.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Shaw was a proponent of a position now known as "Shavian eugenics", after himself, believing that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.[68][69] He wrote that "the only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man"; the selection of partners "without consideration of rank or wealth" would come about when personal incomes were made equal.[70][71]
He was a critic of the use of force for eugenic purposes, and especially of the racist employment of eugenic logic.[65] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[72][73]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sources
(1 = 72, 2 = 73)

1. ^ Stone, Dan (2002). "The Lethal Chamber in Eugenic Thought". Breeding superman: Nietzsche, race and eugenics in Edwardian and interwar Britain. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780853239970. "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture … only The Globe and the Evening News also recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists."
2. ^ Searle (1976: 92): "This was widely felt to be a joke in the worst possible taste".

 

[Syriusly]

....that they didn't adore.


.

More of your usual idiocy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hegel Smagel. Primary sources, voter registration records from the era are telling, and aren't the product of working men and women reading Hegel or Marx or following the lead of anyone but their stomach and those of their family.

Your efforts to label everyone as a Communist is so '50's, the only fear I might have is that the inequity of the 'teens' will bring labor strive, and make the violence of the 30's look like a snowball fight by pre teens.

That you don't know that you and your ideological friends are the problem which will create what you fear most, is why I'm certain your efforts to intellectualize a rewrite of history is so misguided.

1. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice. Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11."
Coulter




2. Now, you coward....accept the challenge of the thread to which you have voluntarily subscribed and explain why Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are so enamored with homicidal philosophies such as communism.

They're not so enamored, and you know it and that is one reason, there are several, that I find you to be one of the most dishonest regulars on this message board.

You've made an allegation, prove that liberals, progressives and Democrats are enamored with homicidal philosophies! Even if you can name one, that has no bearing on the millions of Americans you chose to defame.

In fact, character assassination is your game, alone with rewriting history using obscure authors who scholarship is wanting for it is motivated not by looking for a truth, but the want of a dollar.

In academia your conclusions are supported by an Appeal to Authority; maybe your impressed by one or two writers you consider authorities; I'm not, for the non fiction I read has pages and pages of notes and cites from many different sources. Most include primary sources in the citations, letters, photographs, newspapers and magazines, poems and songs of the era - all of which paint a picture for the reader well before the final chapter is written,

This is why I find you to be a phony.

"Even if you can name one..."

You're right, fool....I didn't name one....

I named six.

FDR
Wallace
Truman
Ted Kennedy
Carter
Obama
And assorted members of their administrations.....

Looks like you're the only dishonest one here.

Or....simply the dumbest.

You're not only a phony and dishonest, you're an asshole. Most callous conservatives are, but you seem to take callousness to a new low. Someone in your past screwed you over, and you've never recovered.

In ALL honesty, get therapy and maybe you can one day pass for a human being.

Aha!

There it is!

. Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

Sort of a Liberal white flag.

Why do you capitalize the word liberal? And why take notice of one word, selected and used appropriately, when my other criticisms were more cutting and evidence based?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What underlies Progressive love of Communism is that they share a deep hatred for humanity. They HATE people! Hate them with a passion that explains why these Progressive Utopias always end in mass graves.

Look at the deep HATRED Progressive have for school kids. Progressives have organized an educational system that destroys the vast majority of the young minds they're entrusted: 40% of minorities drop out and 5 of 6 who "Graduate" are functional illiterates. What motivates the creators of that educational system, love, love of learning?

No! It's a deep seated frothing hatred and believes the high and best use of people is either slavery or fertilizer.

That's why Progressives Love and Idolize their Communist forefathers Mao and Stalin, they did Progressivism right

 

[Wry Catcher]

What underlies Progressive love of Communism is that they share a deep hatred for humanity. They HATE people! Hate them with a passion that explains why these Progressive Utopias always end in mass graves.

Look at the deep HATRED Progressive have for school kids. Progressives have organized an educational system that destroys the vast majority of the young minds they're entrusted: 40% of minorities drop out and 5 of 6 who "Graduate" are functional illiterates. What motivates the creators of that educational system, love, love of learning?

No! It's a deep seated frothing hatred and believes the high and best use of people is either slavery or fertilizer.

That's why Progressives Love and Idolize their Communist forefathers Mao and Stalin, they did Progressivism right

Wow - three paragraphs. Amazing, bull shit all, but I never expected to see anything more than a one-line idiot-gram from you. Maybe soon you can string two sentences together which reflect reality, then I'll really fall of my chair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again you quote one staunchly in favor of genocide and eugenics.

And once again you lie.

I never lie.....you're simply a fool.

You always lie, even after your lies have been explained to you.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Shaw was mocking Eugenicists, he is a satirist by trade.

In his writings he has his own version of Eugenics called Sahvian Eugenics, where the "Superman" is produced by the mating choices of women, NO genocide involved, unless in your perverted mind all women are Black Widows who kill their mates after sex.

Try reading "Man and Superman" instead of being so illiterate! And then try thinking for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting liars you admire for their lies.

You're a moron.

I provided the genocidal maniac explaining it in his own words, and you simple squeeze your eyes shut, cover your ears, and whine "is not, is nooooootttttt! waa waa waa!"

You provided your deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's satirizing Eugenics, which you have done in the past several times and were corrected every time, yet you still parrot the same lie. You can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying after the first time your lie was corrected, so all your continuing lies are premeditated.

Again, if you had ever actually read any of Shaw's literature, you would know there is no genocide in Shavian Eugenics. Women are not Black Widows, and you are a pathological liar.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Shaw was a proponent of a position now known as "Shavian eugenics", after himself, believing that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.[68][69] He wrote that "the only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man"; the selection of partners "without consideration of rank or wealth" would come about when personal incomes were made equal.[70][71]
He was a critic of the use of force for eugenic purposes, and especially of the racist employment of eugenic logic.[65] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[72][73]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sources
(1 = 72, 2 = 73)

1. ^ Stone, Dan (2002). "The Lethal Chamber in Eugenic Thought". Breeding superman: Nietzsche, race and eugenics in Edwardian and interwar Britain. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780853239970. "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture … only The Globe and the Evening News also recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists."
2. ^ Searle (1976: 92): "This was widely felt to be a joke in the worst possible taste".

You are truly an imbecile....but, I suppose you're tired of hearing that from everybody.


"...George Bernard Shaw, the celebrated progressive playwright defended Hitler, advocated killing those who can’t justify their existence and called for the development of lethal gas 10 years before the national socialists in Germany did exactly that.


George Bernard Shaw, “ I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’


Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”


Interviewed on Germany Shaw declared:

“Germany’s contention of ‘race pollution’ was ‘despicably unscientific.’” But he said he “appreciated” Hitler’s political sagacity and the courage with which he has rescued Germany from the gutter,, and placed her once more at the head of Central Europe.”


( SOURCE: GEORGE BERNARD SHAW Approaches His 82d Birthday Anemic But Still Vociferously Aware of His OwnJJnique. Significance, Galveston Daily News: 7/24/1938)

 

[edthecynic]

And once again you lie.

I never lie.....you're simply a fool.

You always lie, even after your lies have been explained to you.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Shaw was mocking Eugenicists, he is a satirist by trade.

In his writings he has his own version of Eugenics called Sahvian Eugenics, where the "Superman" is produced by the mating choices of women, NO genocide involved, unless in your perverted mind all women are Black Widows who kill their mates after sex.

Try reading "Man and Superman" instead of being so illiterate! And then try thinking for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting liars you admire for their lies.

You're a moron.

I provided the genocidal maniac explaining it in his own words, and you simple squeeze your eyes shut, cover your ears, and whine "is not, is nooooootttttt! waa waa waa!"

You provided your deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's satirizing Eugenics, which you have done in the past several times and were corrected every time, yet you still parrot the same lie. You can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying after the first time your lie was corrected, so all your continuing lies are premeditated.

Again, if you had ever actually read any of Shaw's literature, you would know there is no genocide in Shavian Eugenics. Women are not Black Widows, and you are a pathological liar.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Shaw was a proponent of a position now known as "Shavian eugenics", after himself, believing that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.[68][69] He wrote that "the only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man"; the selection of partners "without consideration of rank or wealth" would come about when personal incomes were made equal.[70][71]
He was a critic of the use of force for eugenic purposes, and especially of the racist employment of eugenic logic.[65] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he lampooned parts of the eugenics movement by mockingly suggesting the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …" This was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder dreams, although many in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone wrote: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture."[72][73]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sources
(1 = 72, 2 = 73)

1. ^ Stone, Dan (2002). "The Lethal Chamber in Eugenic Thought". Breeding superman: Nietzsche, race and eugenics in Edwardian and interwar Britain. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780853239970. "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture … only The Globe and the Evening News also recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists."
2. ^ Searle (1976: 92): "This was widely felt to be a joke in the worst possible taste".

You are truly an imbecile....but, I suppose you're tired of hearing that from everybody.


"...George Bernard Shaw, the celebrated progressive playwright defended Hitler, advocated killing those who can’t justify their existence and called for the development of lethal gas 10 years before the national socialists in Germany did exactly that.


George Bernard Shaw, “ I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’


Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”


Interviewed on Germany Shaw declared:

“Germany’s contention of ‘race pollution’ was ‘despicably unscientific.’” But he said he “appreciated” Hitler’s political sagacity and the courage with which he has rescued Germany from the gutter,, and placed her once more at the head of Central Europe.”


( SOURCE: GEORGE BERNARD SHAW Approaches His 82d Birthday Anemic But Still Vociferously Aware of His OwnJJnique. Significance, Galveston Daily News: 7/24/1938)

You just can't stop yourself from lying even in the face of the truth. You are a true sociopath!

 

[regent]

From the innocent looking paper boy to the corner grocer, it now sounds like most of the country is communist, and if so, how could people not meet them. They are all over. If America would only pass a law forcing those suspected of communism to wear a symbol on their clothing how much safer we would be.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From the innocent looking paper boy to the corner grocer, it now sounds like most of the country is communist, and if so, how could people not meet them. They are all over. If America would only pass a law forcing those suspected of communism to wear a symbol on their clothing how much safer we would be.

According to PoliticalChic and her subaltern CrusaderFrank such a symbol isn't necessary. All Democrats, all progressives, all liberals, all gays/lesbians, all non Christian, in fact all American citizens who do not subscribe to the far right ideology those on the Crazy New Right hold dear, are Communists.

 

[georgephillip]

From the innocent looking paper boy to the corner grocer, it now sounds like most of the country is communist, and if so, how could people not meet them. They are all over. If America would only pass a law forcing those suspected of communism to wear a symbol on their clothing how much safer we would be.

Perhaps PC has accidentally raised an issue that could be useful if it's removed from its ideological blinders.

Antony C. Sutton, among others, has made allegations concerning US support (Republican and Democrat) for the emergence of the Soviet Union and its rise to the status of superpower:

"Sutton studied at the universities of London,Göttingen, and California, and received his D.Sc. from the University of Southampton. He was an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973.

"During his time at the Hoover Institution, he wrote the major study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), arguing that the West played a major role in developing the Soviet Union from its very beginnings up until the present time (1970).

"Sutton argued that the Soviet Union's technological and manufacturing base — which was then engaged in supplying the Viet Cong — was built by United States corporations and largely funded by US taxpayers.

"Steel and iron plants, the GAZ automobile factory — a Ford subsidiary, located in eastern Russia — and many other Soviet industrial enterprises were built with the help or technical assistance of the United States or US corporations.

"He argued further that the Soviet Union's acquisition of MIRV technology was made possible by receiving (from US sources) machining equipment for the manufacture of precision ball bearings, necessary to mass-produce MIRV-enabled missiles."

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From the innocent looking paper boy to the corner grocer, it now sounds like most of the country is communist, and if so, how could people not meet them. They are all over. If America would only pass a law forcing those suspected of communism to wear a symbol on their clothing how much safer we would be.

According to PoliticalChic and her subaltern CrusaderFrank such a symbol isn't necessary. All Democrats, all progressives, all liberals, all gays/lesbians, all non Christian, in fact all American citizens who do not subscribe to the far right ideology those on the Crazy New Right hold dear, are Communists.

Dude, what else can we say when there's no difference between the ideas you spew here daily and those embraced by CPUSA?