Is socialism a violent socioeconomic system? Yes, indeed it is.

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

Surely that would depend on what was on the ballot paper ? Thats a given isnt it ?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

If you want to make the US a slave state you need a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND FILL YOU UP WITH LEAD

.

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you! Armed insurrection is not the logical path to redress grievances; the former is unconstitutional, unlawful and down right idiocy as a response to the latter. Swap the thumbs again!

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you!

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

[28] The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

[29] 207 U.S. at 148, 28 S. Ct. at 35


But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

So you do the math.

 

[alpine]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are as you like em.

I see... I heard the same story some place else... Where was that...

 

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are as you like em.

I see... I heard the same story some place else... Where was that...

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are not use as a mandate to transgress upon my


right to :

life and defend the same

Liberty

Property

and to pursue happiness


.

 

[alpine]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are as you like em.

I see... I heard the same story some place else... Where was that...

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are not use as a mandate to transgress upon my


right to :

life and defend the same

Liberty

Property

and to pursue happiness


.

And how do we know these rights are in jeopardy by any means?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

In your scrambled and distorted mind perhaps, but give it a shot and see if your righteous ignorance prospers or you die like a rabid dog! Also, given your claim that there is no judicial review, how do you explain all those SCOTUS cases you have cited? You seem very, very fucking confused. Switch thumbs

But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

That is total bullshit, and irrelevant to the topic of ARMED INSURECTION you initiated! And what the fuck does it have to do with YOUR OP anyway?

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

That sentence defies logic, common sense and fucking reality! Look up Judicial Immunity and the Immunity Doctrine and edify yourself. One can always bring an action before a court for judgment given an actionable cause and standing or petition Congress for redress. And here you purport to be constitutionally knowledgeable. Switch thumbs again!

 

[Agit8r]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

FAIL

"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)

 

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are as you like em.

I see... I heard the same story some place else... Where was that...

So in other words; voting is fine and everything, but of course, as long as the results are not use as a mandate to transgress upon my


right to :

life and defend the same

Liberty

Property

and to pursue happiness


.

And how do we know these rights are in jeopardy by any means?

Are you an American?

Did you go to school for 12 years?

How can you function if you do not know what rights are protected?

 

[Contumacious]

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

In your scrambled and distorted mind perhaps, but give it a shot and see if your righteous ignorance prospers or you die like a rabid dog! Also, given your claim that there is no judicial review, how do you explain all those SCOTUS cases you have cited? You seem very, very fucking confused. Switch thumbs

But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

That is total bullshit, and irrelevant to the topic of ARMED INSURECTION you initiated! And what the fuck does it have to do with YOUR OP anyway?

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

That sentence defies logic, common sense and fucking reality! Look up Judicial Immunity and the Immunity Doctrine and edify yourself. One can always bring an action before a court for judgment given an actionable cause and standing or petition Congress for redress. And here you purport to be constitutionally knowledgeable. Switch thumbs again!

EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY. AMONG THE MANY REASONS TO SHOW THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ARE:

HOW CAN OBAMA HELLCARE BE CONSTITUTIONAL? HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NOT BE BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED?

HOW CAN SCOTUS LOWER THE STANDARD FROM AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED TO THE GOVERNMENT MERELY HAVING TO SHOW THAT AN ACT IS "REASONABLE"?

WHY DO THE "JUDICIARY" REFUSES TO CONSIDER CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER ADOPTED

SWITCH BRAINS.

 

[francoHFW]

Theoretical communism, no. But the USSR, Red China, Cuba etc yes. And always put in by violence, dupe. You're out of your mind.

The issue is franco hater dupe bot, you are an ignorant troll. You have very little education and have no knowledge at all of history, economics, business, or politics.

You use terms with zero grasp of what those terms mean. Yes, you are a hack, but as is the case with most hacks, you are an abjectly ignorant fool.

Socialism is a command economy. Command economies rest upon coercion. There is implied violence behind all command economies, comply or be punished. Socialism by definition rests upon the threat of punishment.

Production among humans is performed for one of two reasons; the promise of reward, or the fear of punishment. Socialism does away with the promise of reward, leaving only the thread of punishment. Obviously this is WAY beyond the ability of an artificial stupidity piece of malware like you to grasp, but the facts remain.

Outside the Cold War dinosaur, US RW idiocy bubble, that's COMMUNISM, not socialism, dumbass. Everywhere else, socialism is ALWAYS democratic, fair capitalism. Hopefully, Bernie will finally end the stupidity/ignorance for good.

 

[Contumacious]

Theoretical communism, no. But the USSR, Red China, Cuba etc yes. And always put in by violence, dupe. You're out of your mind.

The issue is franco hater dupe bot, you are an ignorant troll. You have very little education and have no knowledge at all of history, economics, business, or politics.

You use terms with zero grasp of what those terms mean. Yes, you are a hack, but as is the case with most hacks, you are an abjectly ignorant fool.

Socialism is a command economy. Command economies rest upon coercion. There is implied violence behind all command economies, comply or be punished. Socialism by definition rests upon the threat of punishment.

Production among humans is performed for one of two reasons; the promise of reward, or the fear of punishment. Socialism does away with the promise of reward, leaving only the thread of punishment. Obviously this is WAY beyond the ability of an artificial stupidity piece of malware like you to grasp, but the facts remain.

Outside the Cold War dinosaur, US RW idiocy bubble, that's COMMUNISM, not socialism, dumbass. Everywhere else, socialism is ALWAYS democratic, fair capitalism. Hopefully, Bernie will finally end the stupidity/ignorance for good.

In Venezuela they "democratically" adopted socialism now they wonder:

Venezuela food shortages: 'No one can explain why a rich country has no food'

 

[Skylar]

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

Surely that would depend on what was on the ballot paper ? Thats a given isnt it ?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

If you want to make the US a slave state you need a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND FILL YOU UP WITH LEAD

.

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you! Armed insurrection is not the logical path to redress grievances; the former is unconstitutional, unlawful and down right idiocy as a response to the latter. Swap the thumbs again!

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you!

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

[28] The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

[29] 207 U.S. at 148, 28 S. Ct. at 35


But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

So you do the math.

You can make a complaint to judges if you'd like. That doesn't mean that your complaint has any legal merit.

See, you're confusing having the legal right to lodge your complaint with the laws agreement with it. They aren't the same thing.

 

[jillian]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

 

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

 

[Skylar]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

Any regulation of the economy is fascism? Really?

If that's your argument, you're raising ignorance to an art form.

 

[jillian]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

well then the founding fathers must have been fascists, idiota, since they gave congress the right to legislate all things in interstate commerce.

psycho.

 

[SmokeALib]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

 

[Contumacious]

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

Surely that would depend on what was on the ballot paper ? Thats a given isnt it ?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

If you want to make the US a slave state you need a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND FILL YOU UP WITH LEAD

.

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you! Armed insurrection is not the logical path to redress grievances; the former is unconstitutional, unlawful and down right idiocy as a response to the latter. Swap the thumbs again!

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you!

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

[28] The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

[29] 207 U.S. at 148, 28 S. Ct. at 35


But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

So you do the math.

You can make a complaint to judges if you'd like. That doesn't mean that your complaint has any legal merit.

See, you're confusing having the legal right to lodge your complaint with the laws agreement with it. They aren't the same thing.

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides

 

[Skylar]

Surely that would depend on what was on the ballot paper ? Thats a given isnt it ?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

If you want to make the US a slave state you need a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND FILL YOU UP WITH LEAD

.

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you! Armed insurrection is not the logical path to redress grievances; the former is unconstitutional, unlawful and down right idiocy as a response to the latter. Swap the thumbs again!

Constitutionally speaking, you are really fucking ignorant of that founding document aren't you!

Armed insurrection is the logical path to redress grievances when there is no judicial review.

The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

[28] The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

[29] 207 U.S. at 148, 28 S. Ct. at 35


But Americans no longer have the right to sue the government to prevent the theft of lands.

Americans no longer have the right to sue judges for refusing to redress their grievances - judges claim to be immune from lawsuit.

So you do the math.

You can make a complaint to judges if you'd like. That doesn't mean that your complaint has any legal merit.

See, you're confusing having the legal right to lodge your complaint with the laws agreement with it. They aren't the same thing.

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides

And disagreeing with whatever hapless batshit you make up doesn't make a court 'kangaroo'.

That's something you sovereign citizen types never understood. You making shit up doesn't make law.

 

[EriktheRed]

Are wingnuts violent sociopaths who do a lot of projection?

 

[Skylar]

Are wingnuts violent sociopaths who do a lot of projection?

David Fry did an excellent job of representing the perspective of the fringe wingnuts.

I especially enjoyed the part of his rant about the 'Aliens'.