If you give a Marxist a dime...

[Norman]

/----/ Next they will say a hot summer is proof of global warming but a cold winter is just weather.

Not a chance. We never use your side's propaganda tactics. We have the science on our side, so we don't have to use propaganda. All the science contradicts your kook cult claims, so propaganda is all you can use.

The science that says there are 71 genders?

The more you mention the "use of science", the more certain it becomes that you have no idea what it even means.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

There is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left.

The Right stands for the values, attitudes and traditions that can be traced back to the Founders.

The Left renounces each and every one of same.


Hard to believe that folks like you can actually learn to type....but cannot process facts and reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't give Marxist a dime is the solution. And Marxists, are what many on the left unfortunately are. They apparently just do not care about all the failures of Marxism.

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

 

[mamooth]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

 

[mamooth]

The more you mention the "use of science", the more certain it becomes that you have no idea what it even means.

You know, if the entire planet said I was wrong about some scientific issue, I'd seriously consider the possibility I was wrong. I certainly would not start babbling about a VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

But then, that's because I'm not a paranoid cult narcissist who actually thinks he knows better than the whole planet because he saw something on a conspiracy blog.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

 

[jc456]

/----/ Next they will say a hot summer is proof of global warming but a cold winter is just weather.

Not a chance. We never use your side's propaganda tactics. We have the science on our side, so we don't have to use propaganda. All the science contradicts your kook cult claims, so propaganda is all you can use.

Every snowflake, every short spell of cool weather, the denier cultists scream it disproves global warming. Go into he Environment forum here, you'll see your cult uses such sleazy propaganda constantly. And obviously, we on the rational side never claim that some local weather proves anything.

jc456, of course, is one of the cult propagandists. His cult has ordered him to lie, and he hasn't got the balls or brains to go against cult dogma.

you wouldn't know what balls and brains looks like kitty

 

[jc456]

The more you mention the "use of science", the more certain it becomes that you have no idea what it even means.

You know, if the entire planet said I was wrong about some scientific issue, I'd seriously consider the possibility I was wrong. I certainly would not start babbling about a VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

But then, that's because I'm not a paranoid cult narcissist who actually thinks he knows better than the whole planet because he saw something on a conspiracy blog.

well the planet has been telling you you're wrong since I've been in here.

 

[Norman]

The more you mention the "use of science", the more certain it becomes that you have no idea what it even means.

You know, if the entire planet said I was wrong about some scientific issue, I'd seriously consider the possibility I was wrong. I certainly would not start babbling about a VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

But then, that's because I'm not a paranoid cult narcissist who actually thinks he knows better than the whole planet because he saw something on a conspiracy blog.

There is no conspiracy. For example, the cost of the Paris Climate accord was clearly written on the deal. Donald Trump read it and correctly identified that it's not a good decision to fuck over American people over temperature so small that it can't be recognized on the meter.

 

[Tehon]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

 

[PoliticalChic]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism.

“Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Seems I hit a nerve.

I can tell, because you've attempted to ignore direct and dispositive quotes that I provided.



Perhaps you'll learn to be more circumspect in future posts.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism.

“Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

there was a perfect example of such extrapolation last week on this very board lol

 

[Tehon]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Seems I hit a nerve.

I can tell, because you've attempted to ignore direct and dispositive quotes that I provided.



Perhaps you'll learn to be more circumspect in future posts.

Hit a nerve? hardly. The excerpts I posted refute any of your beliefs that Marxism is related to government control of the private sector and wealth redistribution.

 

[Tehon]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Thomas Jefferson.

But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[PoliticalChic]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism.

“Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

there was a perfect example of such extrapolation last week on this very board lol

Every day they try to hide from their past.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism.

“Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

there was a perfect example of such extrapolation last week on this very board lol

Every day they try to hide from their past.

hell they try to hide from their present and future, too

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Seems I hit a nerve.

I can tell, because you've attempted to ignore direct and dispositive quotes that I provided.



Perhaps you'll learn to be more circumspect in future posts.

Hit a nerve? hardly. The excerpts I posted refute any of your beliefs that Marxism is related to government control of the private sector and wealth redistribution.

Nonsense.

For your edification....when you've dug yourself into a hole....stop digging.