Yes, You're A Communist

[PoliticalChic]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

My tolerance for idiots, possibly, needs work. . Forebearance is not one of my gifts....seems I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, the cartoonist is entitled to be wrong.


I'm never in that circumstance.


Until June 21, 1941, Stalin and Hitler were joined-at-the-hip blood brothers.

But what happened AFTER that?

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

"First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.."

Easy to imagine that when one is as dumb as you are.


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


I bet some kind adult would help you get a library card.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But what happened AFTER that?

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

You obviously have missed Poli's (very often repeated) insistence that her definitions apply to all political terms.
To put it simply, if it does not fit her agenda (read Ayn Rand/Ann Coulter; Poli is a feminist, after all), it is 'left', 'evil', anti-American and and down right nasty.

I've read hundreds of books....and studied them....yet you've only mentioned the ones that your masters have told you you must hate.

I just mentioned another one in post #602....


Have you ever read one of those things....books?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How's that, Dr. Fool???

Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic. Alarmist. And just plain wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin.

As an aside, I'm still awaiting your to write your own shit instead of copying and pasting every little thing you post.

"Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic."

No, factual.

As proven by the 'quiz' you've eschewed.

 

[Mac1958]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

My tolerance for idiots, possibly, needs work. . Forebearance is not one of my gifts....seems I don't suffer fools gladly.

Seriously - do left- and right-wingers get together behind closed doors and compare notes on their behaviors? Maybe over coffee and a danish?

You're clearly not interested in changing hearts and minds, you're just here to fling poop.

Come on, tell me. I won't tell anyone.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She sure does seem to have a hair up her ass over an ideology that went out of business back in the '90s.

There's that sort of language that Liberals default to when they've been beaten.

"an ideology that went out of business back in the '90s"
You voted for it in 2012, moron.


These aims:
1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.


2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.


3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.


4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.


6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.


7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.


8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."


9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."


10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.


13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?



I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



In your face, you dope.

 

[Dr Grump]

"Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic."

No, factual.

As proven by the 'quiz' you've eschewed.

You're a fundamentalist hack. That is all you are.

However, kudos for actually appearing to post a reply without cutting and pasting from another source. Well done!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic."

No, factual.

As proven by the 'quiz' you've eschewed.

You're a fundamentalist hack. That is all you are.

However, kudos for actually appearing to post a reply without cutting and pasting from another source. Well done!

I never 'cut and paste.'
My work is cut-paste-and attribution.

That's why you are never able to deny anything in my posts.....other than the Liberal war cry 'is not, isssss nooootttttttt!!!'

 

[JQPublic1]

But what happened AFTER that?

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

"First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.."

Easy to imagine that when one is as dumb as you are.


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


I bet some kind adult would help you get a library card.

It would be nice to see the entire context in which FDR made that statement, if he made it at all. Sounds like he was hoping the Russian Front would withstand the advancing Nazis. That makes sense to me. Not your dumb excerpt with no context.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple.....Franklin Roosevelt decided he loved Stalin more than Hitler, and made certain that Stalin survived and communism had a cozy home in Americ.


Simple, huh.....just like you.

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

"First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.."

Easy to imagine that when one is as dumb as you are.


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


I bet some kind adult would help you get a library card.

It would be nice to see the entire context in which FDR made that statement, if he made it at all. Sounds like he was hoping the Russian Front would withstand the advancing Nazis. That makes sense to me. Not your dumb excerpt with no context.

Well, then...avail yourself of my suggestion to obtain a library card.

You don't have to be a dunce your whole life....take a day off.


And....while you're at the library, look this up:

1. . FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


2. Here is the question:was Roosevelt aware of the homicidal pathology of communism, and if so, shouldn't he have considered same as a reason to put off recognition until he persuaded a change in those policies?


a.He knew.
Eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine:
"In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it."
Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

b. Malcolm Muggeridge "was the first writer to revealthe true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. "
Amazon.com Time and Eternity The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge 9781570759055 Malcolm Muggeridge Nicholas Flynn Books

c. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...designed and perpetrated by 'Uncle Joe,'...yet heenveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..."Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.



OK....so Roosevelt knew the nature of the other side when he offered the partnership....entry into the accepted world community.
There can be no doubt that Roosevelt knew.....and then, as per Stalin's plan, he gave Lend Lease materials that Allies needed, to Stalin.

And, ultimately, resulted in fools who believe what you do.
Watta guy!

 

[Norman]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal use of money to produce real wealth is not a problem. 'Capitalism' should really have a different suffix, as it isn't an 'ism' as most others. It is merely a way that economics can function. Particularly as it was being invented at the Renaissance, it was quite liberating. Turning it into a philosophy or quasi-religion is absurd. All its foibles, errors and horrors have been displayed in history. As with any other human endeavor, motivation is the key.
If Christianity functioned as it should in America, U.S. capitalism would be under proper control; i. e., personal moral control.

"If Christianity functioned as it should in America, U.S. capitalism would be under proper control; i. e., personal moral control."

And yet another lesson to clear up your muddled thinking:
The service that is an inherent part of capitalism is more in accord with Judeo-Christian values than is socialism/Liberalism.


Mull that over.

'Service'? What 'service'?
Apparently another version of Christ and associated teachings has been revealed to you. Mine refer more to the Beatitudes and the Christian communities in Acts. There, if we are to believe the New Testament, goods were held in common, with each member receiving or contributing as necessary. Capitalism had nothing to do with it.

See....now you have earned 'dunce.'

Service...as in Wal-Mart
Socialism....as in the motor vehicle department.



"...if we are to believe the New Testament, goods were held in common, with each member receiving or contributing as necessary..."
Bogus.

"For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. (2 Thess. 3:10)"

What would you know about the motor vehicle department? You don't drive. lol

Let me tell you a true story. It took me less time to get my car registered at our DMV than it took me to get a fishing license at Walmart.

Happy now?

 

[Mac1958]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome!
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Evidently FDR made the right choices. We now have a thriving middle class as a result. It's just that simple, huhnh!

In that case, you must imagiine......I almost said 'think'.....that the Founders were wrong, and Roosevlet, and Stalin, are more correct.

The Founders offered us a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


None of these doctrines subscribe to these views...Liberalism, communism, Nazism, socialism, Progressivism, or fascism.


And neither do you.

First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.. I think the forefathers would have approved of FDR and his actions to create a middle class. Average people without money cannot buy from those who produce things. Our economic health depends on people spending money in the market place.

I wouldn't equate Liberalism with communism or fascism. Socialism? Ok to some degree. Fascism is a right wing descriptor and there is nothing Liberal there. Are you getting sleepy? Tired? Or are you just plain obtuse?

"First of all I don't buy your notion that FDR was a Stalinist at all. He was an American leader who cared about the average citizen. Something you RW shills for the rich seem to have a genetic aversion to.."

Easy to imagine that when one is as dumb as you are.


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


I bet some kind adult would help you get a library card.

It would be nice to see the entire context in which FDR made that statement, if he made it at all. Sounds like he was hoping the Russian Front would withstand the advancing Nazis. That makes sense to me. Not your dumb excerpt with no context.

Well, then...avail yourself of my suggestion to obtain a library card.

You don't have to be a dunce your whole life....take a day off.


And....while you're at the library, look this up:

1. . FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


!

Winston Churchill tried throughout the thirties to get a UK alliance with the Soviets.

Why don't you bitch about that once in a while?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How's that, Dr. Fool???

Terrible. Comparing US liberals to Nazism and Communism is pathetic. Alarmist. And just plain wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin.

As an aside, I'm still awaiting your to write your own shit instead of copying and pasting every little thing you post.

I've asked her to defend her claim that Joe Biden (liberal) is a Communist, but all she does is spit and hiss and claim she never said that.

If you like your RWnuttery with extra nuts, PC is on the menu.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome!
.

He ripped ya' pretty good, huh?

Yer not gonna let him get away wid dat....are ya'????

C'mon.....I'll hold ya' coat.


Show him ya' ain't no wimp.....
...oh...wait.....

 

[Norman]

[QU
Did you read the manifesto? No you didn't. That is all fluff talk, besides "common ownership" is impossible in a stateless society. That is why the "anarcho-communist" view is absolutely hilariously contradictory.

Here is one of the historical moments of communism: 100 million dead.

And hjere is the actual manifesto, if someone wants to read the horrors of what communism is about. And yes, the basket case communist countries have every right to call themselves communist based on this. (Maybe with the exception of China, which is nowadays one party dictatorship, and has abandoned the communist vision).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Pure capitalism is simply not comparable to communism. Free individuals in the absence of coercion achieve amazing things, and very productive countries. This is a fact.

Actually it doesn't back up your point of view. The ideals of communism was a reaction to 1 percent of the population owning 99 percent of the wealth (sound familiar), with that 1 percent not willing to play nice. That is what happens when greedy people throw 99 percent of the rest to the wolves. Thus pure capitalism doesn't work..

Dude, the communist manifesto is laid right there in front of you. Please present to me right now where it lays out a realistic plan to build a "society for the people", instead of one of coercion. The ideals of a communism was born of a man who was possibly in the 1 %, and didn't work a day in his life. This guy is the definition of 1 %er not playing nice. Not very surprisingly, In communism what happens is that if you don't agree with the 1 %, you are put to death.

Speaking of that, what do you mean by the 1 % not willing to play nice? Not giving people all your earnings is not playing nice? Do you yourself donate all your wealth? Sorry, but it's clear that you have received the Marxist indoctrination. No one sane in this age becomes a commie apologist unless indoctrinated.

No, very pure capitalism actually does work. What you have there is bunch of imaginary made up tales. Singapore is doing extremely nicely (and there are no wolf problems there that I am aware of). And no it's not completely "pure" capitalism, nothing completely pure actually exists, so you can forget that lane of defense right there.

 

[Mac1958]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome!
.

He ripped ya' pretty good, huh?

Yer not gonna let him get away wid dat....are ya'????

C'mon.....I'll hold ya' coat.


Show him ya' ain't no wimp.....
...oh...wait.....

Hey, at least he tried.

You just run.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome!
.

He ripped ya' pretty good, huh?

Yer not gonna let him get away wid dat....are ya'????

C'mon.....I'll hold ya' coat.


Show him ya' ain't no wimp.....
...oh...wait.....

Hey, at least he tried.

You just run.
.

Run???/


Nice trying to hide your shameface......did you notice that this is post #619???

Say 'duh....'

 

[Mac1958]

I would think that if you want to change someone's mind about being a euro-socialist or a socialist or a communist, your approach would probably not be to attack them, insult them, and engage in name-calling. Doesn't seem like a very intelligent tactic to me.

Funny, come to think of it, that's how Regressive Lefties approach race issues. The behaviors of the wingers are so similar!

A good reminder that if we actually want to improve things, we'd be smart to culturally marginalize the wingers first.
.

Thank you for blessing us with your words of wisdom.

However, serving people their own misguided and raw beliefs is how learning takes place. If you believe that you should not treat people in accordance to their own standards, well you have just failed the ultimate test of morality and ethics. Let's also not forget the value of satire...

The communist vision has been that people should be killed if they don't believe things which are completely nonfactual (such as: all people are the same). I would think that if you hold such beliefs, you can tolerate a few not so nice words. Words can't kill you, but the very real communist bullets will, and have killed many.

That about concludes my thoughts on the matter.

You're welcome!
.

He ripped ya' pretty good, huh?

Yer not gonna let him get away wid dat....are ya'????

C'mon.....I'll hold ya' coat.


Show him ya' ain't no wimp.....
...oh...wait.....

Hey, at least he tried.

You just run.
.

Run???/


Nice trying to hide your shameface......did you notice that this is post #619???

Say 'duh....'

Yet another great example, thanks.
.