How Marxists got control of the Dems

[Mustang]

Tyndell calls a press conference to announce his ManMade Global Warming experiment prove a 100PPM increase in CO2 melts the polar ice caps, turns the the oceans into gastric juices and melts the seafloor under the Arctic

How much do you know about global warming? Have you ever read a book about it? I have. I suggest you might start by reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery.

Do you know how many CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere now? Surprisingly little. Currently, there's about 392 PPM. In 1965, it was about 320 PPM. So, a 100 PPM increase would represent a 25% increase. That's a LOT. And whatever amount is put into the atmosphere today would have an effect that would last for decades afterward.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up

Do yourself a favor and read a book written by someone with some expertise on a topic instead of perusing partisan websites which are FAR more interested in indoctrinating someone than elucidating anyone.

 

[Mustang]

You're clueless, aren't you? There IS no resolution.

So you were blowing smoke and billowing bullshit, as usual.

And why? Because House and Senate members aren't in Washington!!!

We can test that, if there is a resolution when they return, then what you say is correct, else you are blowing smoke and billowing bullshit, as usual.

If they WERE in DC, you can be sure they would have passed a resolution, if for no other reason then to get it on the record.

Why?

There is a court challenge in progress, which is the proper venue.

You have no clue how our government works, no wonder you support Obama.

Now, IF the House decides in late January to actually pass such a resolution, don't you think it's going to look strikingly odd about the amount of time that passed between Obama making the appointments and Congress passing a resolution when Republicans claimed all along that they weren't actually on recess at all?

You don't seem to grasp that it was the SENATE that was in session.

Now the courts will rule on the legality of Obama's move.

I'm clueless? LOL!

I mentioned the House passing a resolution condemning the President because the House has a Republican majority and could pass such a resolution if they wanted. The Senate has a Democrat majority that could block any resolution.

Try to keep up! At the very least, try to stay no more than 2 steps behind everyone else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm clueless? LOL!

Yes.

I mentioned the House passing a resolution condemning the President because the House has a Republican majority and could pass such a resolution if they wanted.

That would be stupid. What would they do, pass a resolution chiding Dear Leader for violating the law? To what end?

But we'll see if they do that.

The Senate has a Democrat majority that could block any resolution.

So?

A resolution is just for show anyway. What difference does it make if it's blocked.

Try to keep up! At the very least, try to stay no more than 2 steps behind everyone else.

So when you were diagnosed as mentally retarded, were you still an infant?

 

[Mustang]

I'm clueless? LOL!

Yes.

I mentioned the House passing a resolution condemning the President because the House has a Republican majority and could pass such a resolution if they wanted.

That would be stupid. What would they do, pass a resolution chiding Dear Leader for violating the law? To what end?

But we'll see if they do that.

The Senate has a Democrat majority that could block any resolution.

So?

A resolution is just for show anyway. What difference does it make if it's blocked.

Try to keep up! At the very least, try to stay no more than 2 steps behind everyone else.

So when you were diagnosed as mentally retarded, were you still an infant?

The ad hominem attack is an indication that you're losing the argument, and you know it.

Carry on!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ialist-communist-left-wing-liberal-pussy.html

No, nope, no way Dems are Maxrists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The ad hominem attack is an indication that you're losing the argument, and you know it.

Carry on!

This ad hom attack?

Try to keep up! At the very least, try to stay no more than 2 steps behind everyone else.

You are quickly degenerating to jakestarkey/Truthmatters levels...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much do you know about global warming? Have you ever read a book about it? I have. I suggest you might start by reading "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery.

Do you know how many CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere now? Surprisingly little. Currently, there's about 392 PPM. In 1965, it was about 320 PPM. So, a 100 PPM increase would represent a 25% increase. That's a LOT. And whatever amount is put into the atmosphere today would have an effect that would last for decades afterward.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up

Do yourself a favor and read a book written by someone with some expertise on a topic instead of perusing partisan websites which are FAR more interested in indoctrinating someone than elucidating anyone.

I know for a fact there's no real science behind AGW BECAUSE I've been reading the crap they publish starting with the Scarfetta and West paper that allocating warming between the Sun and mankind and determined the The Big Yellow Thing in the Sky was only 30% responsible.

Read the paper yourself, until then take my advise and shut the fuck up

 

[Mustang]

Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up

Do yourself a favor and read a book written by someone with some expertise on a topic instead of perusing partisan websites which are FAR more interested in indoctrinating someone than elucidating anyone.

I know for a fact there's no real science behind AGW BECAUSE I've been reading the crap they publish starting with the Scarfetta and West paper that allocating warming between the Sun and mankind and determined the The Big Yellow Thing in the Sky was only 30% responsible.

Read the paper yourself, until then take my advise and shut the fuck up

Never heard of him. So, naturally, I looked him up on the Internets. He had a surprisingly short bio on Wiki.

However, I noticed that his background is physics, not climatology. I also noticed that his main claim to fame is his development of a statistical analysis known as Diffusion Entropy Analysis which he has used in his analysis of everything from teen pregnancy to the human gait and earthquakes. That's a world away from climate change.

Here's what some scientists thought of his theory since they were unable to replicate it.

In "Climate Change and its Causes, a Discussion about some Key Issue" Scafetta claims "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[7] Using the theory, Scafetta has predicted global temperature changes up to the year 2100. This theory is disputed.[8] These claims are not accepted in the scientific mainstream.[9]
In 2009, Scafetta faced criticism for failing to disclose the computer code required to reproduce his research.[10]

Nicola Scafetta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ought to read more on the subject than just what climate change deniers write.

 

[Mustang]

The ad hominem attack is an indication that you're losing the argument, and you know it.

Carry on!

This ad hom attack?

Try to keep up! At the very least, try to stay no more than 2 steps behind everyone else.

You are quickly degenerating to jakestarkey/Truthmatters levels...

Just trying to help you out. Someone should.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just trying to help you out. Someone should.

So that was an admission that you had no argument and had to resort to ad hom?

Makes sense.

 

[Mustang]

Just trying to help you out. Someone should.

So that was an admission that you had no argument and had to resort to ad hom?

Makes sense.

Just having a little fun with ya.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just having a little fun with ya.

So, back on topic, how do YOU think the Marxists gained control of the DNC?

 

[usmcstinger]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened" Norman Thomas

 

[Mustang]

Just having a little fun with ya.

So, back on topic, how do YOU think the Marxists gained control of the DNC?

Marxists aren't in control of the DNC. That argument is little more than the equivalent of a magician who makes a grand gesture with his left hand while he performs a slight of hand with the right hand.

In other words, while people are focused on BS (regardless of what it is) the REAL problem is fundamentally more pressing. And THAT problem is that Big money is in control of our political system. Instead of worrying about nonsense (which only distracts everyone from the REAL problems), everyone should be more concerned about how voters and the public, in general, play second fiddle to the men with the big bucks. Those financiers like it when the public is distracted. As Forrest Gump famously said, "It's just one less thing to worry about!"

 

[Political Junky]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened" Norman Thomas

I like this one:

"Sinclair Lewis aptly predicted in It Can't Happen Here that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in the flag and whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner.'" [2]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marxists aren't in control of the DNC. That argument is little more than the equivalent of a magician who makes a grand gesture with his left hand while he performs a slight of hand with the right hand.

Classical Marxism is dead. It was an utter failure and all but the most obtuse are forced to accept this. We have in it's place the NeoMarxism of Chomsky and Alinsky. Whether this has absolute control of the DNC or not is debatable; what is not debatable is that this NeoMarxism in the shell of a corporatist pragmatism is absolutely the driving philosophy of the Obama faction of the democratic party.

In other words, while people are focused on BS (regardless of what it is) the REAL problem is fundamentally more pressing. And THAT problem is that Big money is in control of our political system.

I think the only concern the radical element that controls your party has is that a small fraction of "Big Money" is not yet in the iron fist of the party. We can debate whether Goldman-Sachs controls the DNC, or the DNC controls GS, or if it even makes a difference. What we cannot ignore is that the party and the corporation are intertwined beyond the possibility of distinguishing one from the other. The goals and plans of Goldman, Chase, AIG, BofA, ad infintium, are one and the same as those of the party.

Instead of worrying about nonsense (which only distracts everyone from the REAL problems), everyone should be more concerned about how voters and the public, in general, play second fiddle to the men with the big bucks.

Oh bullshit. You toss out platitudes with no desire to contain anything. You seek only to gain ever more power for your party.

Obama is the biggest recipient of cash from Wall Street and from the Lawyers in the history of this nation, and you support him. So save the hypocritical shit for someone else.

Those financiers like it when the public is distracted. As Forrest Gump famously said, "It's just one less thing to worry about!"

They like it more when the moronic sheeple blindly follow Obama as some supposed reformer. He and the party are consolidating control of the means of production in a fascist alliance of these well-connected looters and the federal government.

 

[freedombecki]

Anyone want to remind him of the geographic and demographic makeup of the democratic party in 1963?

Sure:

The Real Democrat Party link

Our nation’s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
The Democrats:

• Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
• Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
• Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
• Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
• Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
• Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
• Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
• Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
• Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
• Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
• Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
• Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
• Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
• Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
• Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
• Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
• Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
• Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
• Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats opposed:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:

1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
3. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
4. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
5. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
6. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
7. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
8. Civil Rights Act of 1983
9. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

The Republicans:

• Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
• Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
• Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

Read it and weep.
​

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, and what happened between 1960 and 1970? Lyndon Baines Johnson. He convinced JFK to drop the anti-black schtick and get on the black vote-getting bandwagon.

The rest is history.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened" Norman Thomas

Dems ate it up hook, line, sinker, rod and reel

 

[Political Junky]

The Conservative Democrats in the South [Dixiecrats] switched parties following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and have been Republicans since then. Trent Lott was but one of those.
LBJ stated, upon signing, that he'd lost the South for a generation ...