Why Do You Love The Communists?

[JakeStarkey]

Keys once asserts a non-authoritative authority: himself. Fun to read.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1. Hyperbolic outlandish flame opening statement.

2. Re-hashed talking point.

3. Something she heard on Glenn Beck.

4. Something she read on Prison Planet.

5. Ayn Rand reference.

6. Conclusion pulled from her tush.

the very definition of a PoliticalSpice thread

Her funniest tactic is to list reams of facts that prove nothing, and then demand that one disprove the facts.

she derails her own zany threads, yes

Well, I like to think some of us throw a switch on those train tracks once in awhile.

She believes liberals are Stalinists and yet cannot provide one iota of evidence to support that proclamation.

Gilligan, why don'tcha try this: Cite some actual distinctions between the tenets of Stalinism and the lowly modern liberal.

(Reader: Gilligan has been asked to do this time and again... and to date has never managed to offer a single example since it claimed that Modern Liberals do not murder millions of people and it was pointed out that Liberals are presently, unapologetically advocating for the murder of not just millions of people, but have in fact been fully responsible for the murder of no less than 50 million of the most innocent of human life, in just the US, JUST SINCE the early 1970s. This being a record that only Mao, a Liberal of 1950s infamy, who murdered somewhere between 75 and 100 million innocent people, inside a decade.

But let's see how it does this time. "Reason" isn't exactly something Gilligan has any experience with.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys won't cite the similarities between the Russian and American constitutions.

The OP is a loaded question fallacy, and Keys loves fallacy. Read him above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keys won't cite the similarities between the Russian and American constitutions.

The OP is a loaded question fallacy, and Keys loves fallacy. Read him above.

You imbecile....the Russian constitution allowed freedom of religion....except that they destroyed the churches.




And this:

"Church records show that 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns were killed that year." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.29

And John Dewey, a moron who bought the propaganda wholesale, like you, wrote of how impressed he was with the restoration of Russian churches…all the while, under Lenin and Stalin, the demolition of churches was going on! Before the revolution there were 657 churches in Moscow, but some 46 by the ‘70’s.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gald to see PC is silly as usual. She agreed that the USSR and the USA constitutions were similar and blew up her whole OP in so doing.

And I challenge to you unload your fallacy and post a real topic in CDZ.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys won't cite the similarities between the Russian and American constitutions.

The OP is a loaded question fallacy, and Keys loves fallacy. Read him above.

You imbecile....the Russian constitution allowed freedom of religion....except that they destroyed the churches.




And this:

"Church records show that 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns were killed that year." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.29

And John Dewey, a moron who bought the propaganda wholesale, like you, wrote of how impressed he was with the restoration of Russian churches…all the while, under Lenin and Stalin, the demolition of churches was going on! Before the revolution there were 657 churches in Moscow, but some 46 by the ‘70’s.

I am not sure which "Russian Constitution" that is being discussed, but the one to look at is the Constitution of the Soviet Union... there is no better example of idiocy on parade than that waste of paper. In essence, it provided that The STATE grants rights... listed some 125 would-be Rights of the Proletariat, which in its first breath, it deemed irrelevant, because THE STATE IS THE ARBITER OF RIGHTS, WHICH INHERENTLY MEANS THAT AT ANYTIME, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE DECIDES WHO HAVE WHAT RIGHTS AND WHEN... thus demonstrating that THERE ARE NO RIGHTS FOR THE PROLETARIATE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys won't cite the similarities between the Russian and American constitutions.

The OP is a loaded question fallacy, and Keys loves fallacy. Read him above.

You imbecile....the Russian constitution allowed freedom of religion....except that they destroyed the churches.




And this:

"Church records show that 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns were killed that year." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.29

And John Dewey, a moron who bought the propaganda wholesale, like you, wrote of how impressed he was with the restoration of Russian churches…all the while, under Lenin and Stalin, the demolition of churches was going on! Before the revolution there were 657 churches in Moscow, but some 46 by the ‘70’s.

I am not sure which "Russian Constitution" that is being discussed, but the one to look at is the Constitution of the Soviet Union... there is no better example of idiocy on parade than that waste of paper.

You, like PC, are too chicken to post in CDZ.

You would get your clock cleaned if your OP was some of the crap you rant about here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is Starkey always leaping to Stalins defense?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gald to see PC is silly as usual. She agreed that the USSR and the USA constitutions were similar and blew up her whole OP in so doing.

And I challenge to you unload your fallacy and post a real topic in CDZ.

I just blew your comparison of American and Russian Constitutions out of the water, you moron.


You are both stupid and dishonest....you'd try to steal a free sample.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why is Starkey always leaping to Stalins defense?

That would be the natural instinct of the communist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keys won't cite the similarities between the Russian and American constitutions.

The OP is a loaded question fallacy, and Keys loves fallacy. Read him above.

You imbecile....the Russian constitution allowed freedom of religion....except that they destroyed the churches.




And this:

"Church records show that 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns were killed that year." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.29

And John Dewey, a moron who bought the propaganda wholesale, like you, wrote of how impressed he was with the restoration of Russian churches…all the while, under Lenin and Stalin, the demolition of churches was going on! Before the revolution there were 657 churches in Moscow, but some 46 by the ‘70’s.

I am not sure which "Russian Constitution" that is being discussed, but the one to look at is the Constitution of the Soviet Union... there is no better example of idiocy on parade than that waste of paper. In essence, it provided that The STATE grants rights... listed some 125 would-be Rights of the Proletariat, which in its first breath, it deemed irrelevant, because THE STATE IS THE ARBITER OF RIGHTS, WHICH INHERENTLY MEANS THAT AT ANYTIME, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE DECIDES WHO HAVE WHAT RIGHTS AND WHEN... thus demonstrating that THERE ARE NO RIGHTS FOR THE PROLETARIATE.

And that moron, the 'fake,' doesn't understand that it matters not what totalitarian governments write....they just say, 'oh, never mind.'


Amazing how effective secular indoctrination has been.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is Starkey always leaping to Stalins defense?

Show me where I have done that. In unmasking the fallacies of the far right here? Such as yours above?

And PC and Keys keep falling over their fallacies.

Guys, post in the CDZ and we will clean your clock. The entire board knows it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is Starkey always leaping to Stalins defense?

You know why......he doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is Starkey always leaping to Stalins defense?

You know why......he doesn't.

You are right . . . . I don't. Frank, she just sold you down river.

Post in CDZ, PC. You would lose badly.

I never lose....you're simply a low-life liar. That's why you're called 'fakey.' Now....back under your rock.

Of course you have. Your OP here was blown up on the first post because of the logical fallacies of it.

You will never do that in CDZ because you are too scared to do so. Rightfully so.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Too much wrestling. Too little OP discussion. Dont make the thread personal in Zone2.
Please.. Other folks dont want to wade thru the drama.

 

[NoNukes]

I don't, please do not attempt to speak for liberals.

Then don't attempt to speak for conservatives. Class dismissed.

They speak for themselves, I am only pointing out what we have seen on these boards.

Your assertion was "conservatives love Putin." Yours was a intentional broadbrush of conservatives in general, not just those on this board. You are a terrible liar.

And when I threw the baseless accusation that liberals loved Lena Dunham, you reacted predictably, saying "I don't. Please, don't speak for liberals." So, the moral of the story? Don't assign beliefs to people that they don't represent. I myself think Putin has more of a backbone than Obama does, yet still I think he is a megalomaniac. It doesn't take a flaming, passionate love for Putin to see that.

Well, you certainly proved my point. And talking tough is not backbone.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't know what all this "loving communists" stuff is all about, and I'm way too lazy to read through the thread, but I'll say this for sure:

I love the communists for their ability to blend red into virtually every clothing combination.

It's bold, it usually works, and I'm just not good at that stuff.

My two cents right there.

.

I agree. Got to give them credit for that

 

[NYcarbineer]

The vain Lenin agonized over his hair loss.

The vain Reagan dyed his hair.

By the logic of PC, that makes Reagan a Communist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, you certainly proved my point.

What point was that? Assigning false positions to your opponents?

And talking tough is not backbone.

Actually, Putin doesn't just "talk tough." From what I've seen, he had no qualms about bending Ukraine over. Obama is more afraid of the weather than he is ISIS.

 

[Camp]

Well, you certainly proved my point.

What point was that? Assigning false positions to your opponents?

And talking tough is not backbone.

Actually, Putin doesn't just "talk tough." From what I've seen, he had no qualms about bending Ukraine over. Obama is more afraid of the weather than he is ISIS.

Bullies aren't tough guys. They are big guys that only enter into fights they are certain they can win. Putin has made a fool out of himself in Ukraine. He has the territories that were won early on due to surprise and lack of preparedness of the Ukrainians. Since than he has suffered so many losses that he had to make it against the law to report on the returning Russian casualties, particularly the ones who are being buried in attempted secrecy but reported to the press by the mothers and wives. Lets see what happens when he starts imprisoning the moms and wives of dead Russian soldiers returned from Ukraine.