West's Communist Party claim about Democrats

[The T]

The oracle says you belong with a shoe salesman...

​

 

[occupied]

Wet brain malarkey.

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

Yes it's a particularly nasty form of authoritarian right side blindness.

 

[bripat9643]

Getting money from the government is a feature of socialism, not capitalism. Why would anyone aside from the owners of a corporation want the government to give them money?

Also, there isn't the slightest thing immoral about unregulated capitalism

Unregulated capitalism requires a sizable police force and prison system to keep the exploited rabble in line and working for peanuts.

Which is, of course, the main reason why "unregulated" capitalism is an oxymoron, has never existed, will never exist, and can never exist.

Socialism, as its delusional supporters concieve it, has also never exhisted. According to your logic, that means it should be avoided. One thing we know is that the closer a country gets to unregulated capitalism, the faster its economy grows. The closer it gets to socialism, the slower it grows. Often the later course leads to mass starvation and slavery.

The direction our government needs to go is quite clear. It isn't towards more socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

Wet brain malarkey.

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

 

[The T]

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

He has to consult Marx for it...don't wait too long however.

 

[bripat9643]

If business wants government money, then it has to accept the rules.

If you want a paycheck from a businessman, you accept the rules.

Unregulated capitalism is as immoral as communism.

Getting money from the government is a feature of socialism, not capitalism.

A mere false assertion by a wet brain. Do better, bripat.

It's not a false assertion. By definition, capitalism is the system where government doesn't get involved in economic activity. Handing money out to corporations is contrary to that definition.

You really don't have a clue about any of this stuff, do you, Jake the Fake?

 

[Dragon]

Unregulated capitalism requires a sizable police force and prison system to keep the exploited rabble in line and working for peanuts.

Which is, of course, the main reason why "unregulated" capitalism is an oxymoron, has never existed, will never exist, and can never exist.

Socialism, as its delusional supporters concieve it, has also never exhisted.

That's actually true.

According to your logic, that means it should be avoided.

Well, no, that doesn't follow from my logic at all, although it may perhaps be true just the same.

One thing we know is that the closer a country gets to unregulated capitalism, the faster its economy grows. The closer it gets to socialism, the slower it grows.

Here's a perfect example of bripat's disease, the confusion of dogmatic ideological pronouncements with fact. We do NOT know these things from history; in fact, up to a point we know exactly the opposite. The U.S. economy grew much faster from 1940 to 1980, when it was much further from unregulated capitalism, than it did from 1900 to 1940 or from 1980 to the present, when it was and is closer to that ideal (although still pretty far from it). And we can also see that the best-performing economies in the world today are almost all mixed-model, socialist-leaning economies, while those that are closer to pure capitalism (most of them in the third world) tend to be poor countries.

It's only if you cherry-pick the non-democratic, top-down, command socialist economies of the former Soviet bloc countries and, by shutting your eyes to the entire rest of the world, pretend that these are typical of "approaches to socialism," that you can arrive at that conclusion. It requires, in other words, a form of willful blindness.

 

[bripat9643]

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

He has to consult Marx for it...don't wait too long however.

It seems to me that all the "dogmatic ideological pronouncements" are coming from the lefties in this thread. They're the ones who insist McCarthy was a monster without offering a shred of proof. They're the ones who insist unregulated capitalism can't exist. Yada yada yada.

 

[Dragon]

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

He has to consult Marx for it...don't wait too long however.

It seems to me that all the "dogmatic ideological pronouncements" are coming from the lefties in this thread. They're the ones who insist McCarthy was a monster without offering a shred of proof. They're the ones who insist unregulated capitalism can't exist. Yada yada yada.

You just defined yourself as a lefty. You are as dogmatic and ideological as anyone on the board, excepting CrusaderFrank and possibly The Rabbi.

Your type is why we don't let your types influence the party anymore and why we jump on the Wests when they get stupid.

 

[The T]

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

He has to consult Marx for it...don't wait too long however.

It seems to me that all the "dogmatic ideological pronouncements" are coming from the lefties in this thread. They're the ones who insist McCarthy was a monster without offering a shred of proof. They're the ones who insist unregulated capitalism can't exist. Yada yada yada.

It's because they are on the dole...and are threatened.

 

[bripat9643]

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

I did present facts and documentation. What do you want, the verbatam text of the Venona cables? The people I listed were all named in FBI files recently de-classified and/or the transcripts of the Venona cables. They were guilty as hell.

You claim I made "ideological pronouncements." Where is the ideology in a simple statement of fact?

Your so-called "factual evidence" was the real "dogmatic ideological pronouncements" and it was all debunked when the FBI files and the Venona cables were declassified. You keep pretending that never happened, that we have learned nothing new since the 1950s.

 

[Erand7899]

You're kidding us, right?

Not for a second.

No one has a right to a government job, especially not one that gives them access to sensative materials that could endanger American lives if the got into the wrong hands.

Never said otherwise. I'm a firm believer in protecting the security of sensitive information. As a matter of fact, I believe that candidates for government jobs of that nature do go through a thorough screening process to determine whether or not they are a security risk. But if it has been determined that a person is qualified (on all levels) to hold a government job, it's not the task of outsiders to conduct a witch-hunt into their political views with a view to discrediting them.

And that's ESPECIALLY true when the people engaging in said witch-hunt seem unable to make a distinction between extreme views such as Communism and more moderate progressive liberalism -- as you have admitted you cannot.



Of course they're relevant. They're the ones who do the hiring. They're the ones who do the firing, too.

FDR was a poltroon who desired to fill his admistration with commies, but he had no authority to do so.

Actually, it's your opinion of Roosevelt that isn't relevant. He was the boss. He could hire, he could fire. You weren't even born yet.

And he most certainly DID have that authority. He was the president.

You don't give potential spies a chance to send the plans for the A-bomb back to old Uncle Joe.

EVERYONE is a potential spy. So yes, you do. You just try to stop them from doing so. That's the only action compatible with both national security and liberty. You are far too ready to sacrifice the latter in pursuit of the former.

And that, in fact, is my real criticism of the rabid anti-Communism of the McCarthy era. It was a far greater threat to American liberty than Communism. Communism might have damaged American liberty if it had come to power in this country, which it had zero chance of doing. But anti-Communism DID damage American liberty, in real time, in the real world.

Nothing in this world was, nor is a greater threat to American liberty than Communism. The Communist party may be but a fragment of what existed in the 1950s, but the movements set in motion by that group of far left ideologues is still creating damage in the USA. Communist party members of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, were not being paid to bring about a Communist revolution in this country, they were paid to prepare the USA for a future Communist revolution. They worked tirelessly at that task, and they had a whole lot of help from both the FDR and the Truman administrations.

Neither of those administrations understood the real threat of Communism, and both considered Communism to be a benign form of government on a par with our own constitutional Republic. They were not Communists, but fellow travelers who agreed with some elements of Communism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is thinking that he is 'winning' here, much like Santorum thought he was winning but in a very different way. bir, your winning is known as losing. And you are indeed a loser. Not being mean here, guy: simply the truth. Live with it.

 

[The T]

Believing dogmatic ideological pronouncements to be "facts" is a symptom of bripat's disease, a mental disorder only recently discovered by medical science.

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

Translation: " I, Dragoon, lost another one..."

 

[Dragon]

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

I did present facts and documentation. What do you want, the verbatam text of the Venona cables? The people I listed were all named in FBI files recently de-classified and/or the transcripts of the Venona cables. They were guilty as hell.

We haven't been talking about McCarthy for a while now, so obviously that wasn't what I was referring to. But in fact, no, you didn't present any supporting evidence on that subject, either. You SAY such evidence exists, but we haven't seen any of it here so far.

 

[Dragon]

What "dogmatic ideological pronouncements?"

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

Translation: " I, Dragoon, lost another one..."

Tommie-boy, you haven't even mastered English yet. Don't even TRY to translate anything. You have to graduate from high school first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither of those administrations understood the real threat of Communism, and both considered Communism to be a benign form of government on a par with our own constitutional Republic. They were not Communists, but fellow travelers who agreed with some elements of Communism.

Hmmm . . . the Containment Policy? The Truman Doctrine? Benign? Fellow travelers?

You, with bripat, are on a sugar donuts high.

 

[Dragon]

Nothing in this world was, nor is a greater threat to American liberty than Communism.

We can analyze this mathematically: the danger posed by any ideology to American liberty is equal to the amount of damage that would be done by that ideology if it came to power, times the chance that it will come to power. If we set the index of potential harm to a scale from 1-100, I don't even mind putting Communism at 100, although I think that's exaggerated, because it doesn't matter. The chance of Communists coming to power in America is zero, and therefore the danger posed by Communism to American liberty is 100 time zero which is equal to zero.

Anti-communism on a McCarthyist scale actually DID damage American liberty. It produced a chilling effect on free speech, got people blacklisted from their careers and their livelihoods ruined, and targeted First-Amendment protected free association for a host of unofficial and semi-official repression. Not as bad as a full-fledged Stalinist regime, let's call it a 40 on the scale of damage potential. In 1950, anti-communism actually WAS in power, so the chance of success then was 1, and so the danger to American liberty was 40 -- much, much more than that of Communism.

Today, it's not in power, and I would not rate its chances of coming to power very highly; maybe as much as ten percent. That reduces the danger to American liberty from anti-communism all the way down to 4, but it's still more dangerous than Communism, which remains at zero.

 

[The T]

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

Translation: " I, Dragoon, lost another one..."

Tommie-boy, you haven't even mastered English yet. Don't even TRY to translate anything. You have to graduate from high school first.

You've been caught AGAIN. I notice you stopped fomenting violence in your posts as I called YOU out on weeks ago...

Son? You're too transparent...as YOU are right now. Your back is up against the wall, and YOU resent you've been called out on it.

Admit it.