Alinsky, Obama, and the Midwest Academy

[bigrebnc1775]

Probably for the same reason we're having this discussion: you saw the words Clinton and Alinsky near each other and began trying to claim they were linked because you'd be too lazy to read the paper (or even an abstract).

That doesn't matter, what matters is what she wrote about him.

That doesn't make sense.

To you and anyone else who is defending against such a notion it doesn't make sense, but to those of us who see through the lie it makes plenty of sense.

 

[edthecynic]

You realize all of these claims are extremely circumstantial? He knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who sat on a board with another guy. Why should anyone care about this?

Perhaps...but there comes a time when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming...except for those with willful disregard.

One must decide which side one is on.

You're on the wrong side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like this guy saw you coming!

Wha...

...EatToNourish, there was no mention of MahaRushie in post #15?????

Are you off your meds again?

Ed's point is valid. Both sides used the methods outside by Alinsky.

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the cause of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize all of these claims are extremely circumstantial? He knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who sat on a board with another guy. Why should anyone care about this?

Perhaps...but there comes a time when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming...except for those with willful disregard.

One must decide which side one is on.

You're on the wrong side.

EggsAtThePicnic...

Didn't you used to have George Bernard Shaw in your sig?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize all of these claims are extremely circumstantial? He knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who sat on a board with another guy. Why should anyone care about this?

Perhaps...but there comes a time when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming...except for those with willful disregard.

One must decide which side one is on.

You're on the wrong side.

"Though Seeger didn’t formally join the Communist Party until 1942, the Almanacs’ lyrics marched in lockstep with the party’s views well before then. In keeping with the line adopted after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact (which caused many U.S. party members to quit in disgust), for example, the Almanacs warbled against American entry into World War II, foreshadowing the preference for peace at any price that later characterized the McGovernite Left. “Franklin D., listen to me,/You ain’t a-gonna send me ’cross the sea.” The group continued in this vein into the late 1940s. Campaigning for Progressive Party anti–cold war candidate Henry Wallace in 1948, they regularly performed a send-up of Harry Truman, to the tune of “Oh, Susannah”:

We’ve got to jail the communists
To keep this country free.
And everyone’s a communist
Who doesn’t vote for me.
(The lyrics referred to the newly enacted Smith Act, requiring Communist Party members to register with the government.) A more militant Seeger-Guthrie song, “66 Highway Blues,” threatened: “Sometimes I think I’ll blow down a cop/Lord, you treat me so mean. . . . I’m gonna start me a hungry man’s union,/Ain’t a-gonna charge no dues,/Gonna march down that road to the Wall Street Walls,/A-singin’ those 66 Highway Blues.”
America’s Most Successful Communist by Howard Husock, City Journal Summer 2005


Let me think about that....

OK, I'm on the right side.

 

[logical4u]

You realize all of these claims are extremely circumstantial? He knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who sat on a board with another guy. Why should anyone care about this?

There is a pattern..... just sayin'

 

[edthecynic]

Wha...

...EatToNourish, there was no mention of MahaRushie in post #15?????

Are you off your meds again?

Ed's point is valid. Both sides used the methods outside by Alinsky.

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the case of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

Your bait is very Alinsky like! According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Actually Alinksy gives his own reason for his book in its opening. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ed's point is valid. Both sides used the methods outside by Alinsky.

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the case of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

Your bait is very Alinsky like! According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Actually Alinksy gives his own reason for his book in its opening. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

Hey, LinesOfALimerick,

Did you just stick a Shaw quote in there?

Did I just make you react?

Does that make me an organizer?

Speaking of George Bernard Shaw, he was included in the book that Dr. Paul Kangor named...I think he named it for you..."Dupes."

Check this out:
1. In the early years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists used manipulations, such as the Potemkin Villages, to persuade the world how admirable and successful the revolution had been. One technique was to invite prominent American and British leftists to take carefully planned tours. And these ‘Potemkin Progressives,’ for the most part, behaved and thought just as they were meant to. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize the Bolshevik regime, nor would the contemporary British government (Churchill had famously told Lloyd George, ‘You might a well legalize sodomy…’)

a. Lenin, and then Stalin, carefully arranged the tours so that these progressives would then go back to their countries and praise Soviet Russia, and have the citizens demand that Russia be recognized.

2. George Bernard Shaw met with Stalin, as well. He returned, and wrote, “ We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbors, the Soviet Union, humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men.” Now, lest one thinks this was said sarcastically, Lady Aster and others who were present, and took notes, from the meeting, wrote that that was exactly and precisely what Stalin had said. He parroted the exact line that Stalin had given him!

I think it would be so very appropriate if you used that quote in your sig!

How about it?

 

[edthecynic]

Perhaps...but there comes a time when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming...except for those with willful disregard.

One must decide which side one is on.

You're on the wrong side.

"Though Seeger didn’t formally join the Communist Party until 1942, the Almanacs’ lyrics marched in lockstep with the party’s views well before then. In keeping with the line adopted after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact (which caused many U.S. party members to quit in disgust), for example, the Almanacs warbled against American entry into World War II, foreshadowing the preference for peace at any price that later characterized the McGovernite Left. “Franklin D., listen to me,/You ain’t a-gonna send me ’cross the sea.” The group continued in this vein into the late 1940s. Campaigning for Progressive Party anti–cold war candidate Henry Wallace in 1948, they regularly performed a send-up of Harry Truman, to the tune of “Oh, Susannah”:

We’ve got to jail the communists
To keep this country free.
And everyone’s a communist
Who doesn’t vote for me.
(The lyrics referred to the newly enacted Smith Act, requiring Communist Party members to register with the government.) A more militant Seeger-Guthrie song, “66 Highway Blues,” threatened: “Sometimes I think I’ll blow down a cop/Lord, you treat me so mean. . . . I’m gonna start me a hungry man’s union,/Ain’t a-gonna charge no dues,/Gonna march down that road to the Wall Street Walls,/A-singin’ those 66 Highway Blues.”
America’s Most Successful Communist by Howard Husock, City Journal Summer 2005


Let me think about that....

OK, I'm on the right side.

You seem to know less about Pete Seeger than you do about George Bernard Shaw, but google is your friend to tell you what to think about Seeger.

And Seeger's lyric I highlighted is still relevant today. The author you parrot simply has branded all artists as Communists who aren't pro-establishment.

 

[edthecynic]

Speaking of points, how about the one you missed...

Alinsky is a left wing ideologue, whose doctrines are designed to bring about the kinds of governments whose impediments to humanity we observed in the last century, those of communism, nazism, progressivism, the case of more death and enslavement than any other movements or concepts in history.

That would be some hundred million human beings slaughtered. You did notice that, didn't you?

It is less than consequential that you are able to find some aspects which may or may not be comparble in the efforts of alternative persuasions.

Rather, it is an attempt to ameliorate the significance of said usage by contemprary leftists.
An unsuccessful attempt.

Your bait is very Alinsky like! According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Actually Alinksy gives his own reason for his book in its opening. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

Hey, LinesOfALimerick,

Did you just stick a Shaw quote in there?

Did I just make you react?

Does that make me an organizer?

Speaking of George Bernard Shaw, he was included in the book that Dr. Paul Kangor named...I think he named it for you..."Dupes."

Check this out:
1. In the early years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists used manipulations, such as the Potemkin Villages, to persuade the world how admirable and successful the revolution had been. One technique was to invite prominent American and British leftists to take carefully planned tours. And these ‘Potemkin Progressives,’ for the most part, behaved and thought just as they were meant to. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize the Bolshevik regime, nor would the contemporary British government (Churchill had famously told Lloyd George, ‘You might a well legalize sodomy…’)

a. Lenin, and then Stalin, carefully arranged the tours so that these progressives would then go back to their countries and praise Soviet Russia, and have the citizens demand that Russia be recognized.

2. George Bernard Shaw met with Stalin, as well. He returned, and wrote, “ We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbors, the Soviet Union, humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men.” Now, lest one thinks this was said sarcastically, Lady Aster and others who were present, and took notes, from the meeting, wrote that that was exactly and precisely what Stalin had said. He parroted the exact line that Stalin had given him!

I think it would be so very appropriate if you used that quote in your sig!

How about it?

The quote has been there, in green, all along. Rather than make you an organizer, it makes you BLINDED by your ego.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're on the wrong side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43Cm6ra0hY

"Though Seeger didn’t formally join the Communist Party until 1942, the Almanacs’ lyrics marched in lockstep with the party’s views well before then. In keeping with the line adopted after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact (which caused many U.S. party members to quit in disgust), for example, the Almanacs warbled against American entry into World War II, foreshadowing the preference for peace at any price that later characterized the McGovernite Left. “Franklin D., listen to me,/You ain’t a-gonna send me ’cross the sea.” The group continued in this vein into the late 1940s. Campaigning for Progressive Party anti–cold war candidate Henry Wallace in 1948, they regularly performed a send-up of Harry Truman, to the tune of “Oh, Susannah”:

We’ve got to jail the communists
To keep this country free.
And everyone’s a communist
Who doesn’t vote for me.
(The lyrics referred to the newly enacted Smith Act, requiring Communist Party members to register with the government.) A more militant Seeger-Guthrie song, “66 Highway Blues,” threatened: “Sometimes I think I’ll blow down a cop/Lord, you treat me so mean. . . . I’m gonna start me a hungry man’s union,/Ain’t a-gonna charge no dues,/Gonna march down that road to the Wall Street Walls,/A-singin’ those 66 Highway Blues.”
America’s Most Successful Communist by Howard Husock, City Journal Summer 2005


Let me think about that....

OK, I'm on the right side.

You seem to know less about Pete Seeger than you do about George Bernard Shaw, but google is your friend to tell you what to think about Seeger.

And Seeger's lyric I highlighted is still relevant today. The author you parrot simply has branded all artists as Communists who aren't pro-establishment.

Don't be a silly boy.

You know you'd rather live in a capitalist nation, here, than in the world that Seeger and Shaw propound...

you just like to mouth that drivel...Otherwise you wouldn't be living here.

Now, about that Shaw quote for your sig....how about it, you subscribe to "humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters"...right?

Consistent with the Progressives and eugenics, ....you're down with that, too, aren't you?

C'mon, boyo, put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your bait is very Alinsky like! According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Actually Alinksy gives his own reason for his book in its opening. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

Hey, LinesOfALimerick,

Did you just stick a Shaw quote in there?

Did I just make you react?

Does that make me an organizer?

Speaking of George Bernard Shaw, he was included in the book that Dr. Paul Kangor named...I think he named it for you..."Dupes."

Check this out:
1. In the early years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists used manipulations, such as the Potemkin Villages, to persuade the world how admirable and successful the revolution had been. One technique was to invite prominent American and British leftists to take carefully planned tours. And these ‘Potemkin Progressives,’ for the most part, behaved and thought just as they were meant to. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize the Bolshevik regime, nor would the contemporary British government (Churchill had famously told Lloyd George, ‘You might a well legalize sodomy…’)

a. Lenin, and then Stalin, carefully arranged the tours so that these progressives would then go back to their countries and praise Soviet Russia, and have the citizens demand that Russia be recognized.

2. George Bernard Shaw met with Stalin, as well. He returned, and wrote, “ We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbors, the Soviet Union, humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men.” Now, lest one thinks this was said sarcastically, Lady Aster and others who were present, and took notes, from the meeting, wrote that that was exactly and precisely what Stalin had said. He parroted the exact line that Stalin had given him!

I think it would be so very appropriate if you used that quote in your sig!

How about it?

The quote has been there, in green, all along. Rather than make you an organizer, it makes you BLINDED by your ego.

Oops...guilty as charged.

 

[edthecynic]

"Though Seeger didn’t formally join the Communist Party until 1942, the Almanacs’ lyrics marched in lockstep with the party’s views well before then. In keeping with the line adopted after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact (which caused many U.S. party members to quit in disgust), for example, the Almanacs warbled against American entry into World War II, foreshadowing the preference for peace at any price that later characterized the McGovernite Left. “Franklin D., listen to me,/You ain’t a-gonna send me ’cross the sea.” The group continued in this vein into the late 1940s. Campaigning for Progressive Party anti–cold war candidate Henry Wallace in 1948, they regularly performed a send-up of Harry Truman, to the tune of “Oh, Susannah”:

We’ve got to jail the communists
To keep this country free.
And everyone’s a communist
Who doesn’t vote for me.
(The lyrics referred to the newly enacted Smith Act, requiring Communist Party members to register with the government.) A more militant Seeger-Guthrie song, “66 Highway Blues,” threatened: “Sometimes I think I’ll blow down a cop/Lord, you treat me so mean. . . . I’m gonna start me a hungry man’s union,/Ain’t a-gonna charge no dues,/Gonna march down that road to the Wall Street Walls,/A-singin’ those 66 Highway Blues.”
America’s Most Successful Communist by Howard Husock, City Journal Summer 2005


Let me think about that....

OK, I'm on the right side.

You seem to know less about Pete Seeger than you do about George Bernard Shaw, but google is your friend to tell you what to think about Seeger.

And Seeger's lyric I highlighted is still relevant today. The author you parrot simply has branded all artists as Communists who aren't pro-establishment.

Don't be a silly boy.

You know you'd rather live in a capitalist nation, here, than in the world that Seeger and Shaw propound...

you just like to mouth that drivel...Otherwise you wouldn't be living here.

Now, about that Shaw quote for your sig....how about it, you subscribe to "humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters"...right?

Consistent with the Progressives and eugenics, ....you're down with that, too, aren't you?

C'mon, boyo, put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

I already nailed you with the perversion of Shavian Eugenics you copied and pasted on another thread, where the person you parroted took Shaw's satire out of context. You have no credibility when it comes to Shaw. You can only parrot other people's opinions you know nothing about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem to know less about Pete Seeger than you do about George Bernard Shaw, but google is your friend to tell you what to think about Seeger.

And Seeger's lyric I highlighted is still relevant today. The author you parrot simply has branded all artists as Communists who aren't pro-establishment.

Don't be a silly boy.

You know you'd rather live in a capitalist nation, here, than in the world that Seeger and Shaw propound...

you just like to mouth that drivel...Otherwise you wouldn't be living here.

Now, about that Shaw quote for your sig....how about it, you subscribe to "humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters"...right?

Consistent with the Progressives and eugenics, ....you're down with that, too, aren't you?

C'mon, boyo, put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

I already nailed you with the perversion of Shavian Eugenics you copied and pasted on another thread, where the person you parroted took Shaw's satire out of context. You have no credibility when it comes to Shaw. You can only parrot other people's opinions you know nothing about.

Of course, you did no such thing...

Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe....

I notice you haven't denied the Kangor quote from "Dupes."

So,...when will I see the Shaw quote in your sig?

'Else you'd be admitting that 'Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe'....


C'mon, Meds, either agree with Shaw about 'liquidating' opponents, or throw in the towel.


In case you need a refresher:
1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.

2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” New Statesman - The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

3.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't be a silly boy.

You know you'd rather live in a capitalist nation, here, than in the world that Seeger and Shaw propound...

you just like to mouth that drivel...Otherwise you wouldn't be living here.

Now, about that Shaw quote for your sig....how about it, you subscribe to "humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters"...right?

Consistent with the Progressives and eugenics, ....you're down with that, too, aren't you?

C'mon, boyo, put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

I already nailed you with the perversion of Shavian Eugenics you copied and pasted on another thread, where the person you parroted took Shaw's satire out of context. You have no credibility when it comes to Shaw. You can only parrot other people's opinions you know nothing about.

Of course, you did no such thing...

Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe....

I notice you haven't denied the Kangor quote from "Dupes."

So,...when will I see the Shaw quote in your sig?

'Else you'd be admitting that 'Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe'....


C'mon, Meds, either agree with Shaw about 'liquidating' opponents, or throw in the towel.


In case you need a refresher:
1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.

2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” New Statesman - The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

3.

BULLSHIT!
It was bullshit when I made you eat it then and it is still bullshit now!

To refresh your memory, you cut and ran after this post below only to post the same crap in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

I already nailed you with the perversion of Shavian Eugenics you copied and pasted on another thread, where the person you parroted took Shaw's satire out of context. You have no credibility when it comes to Shaw. You can only parrot other people's opinions you know nothing about.

Of course, you did no such thing...

Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe....

I notice you haven't denied the Kangor quote from "Dupes."

So,...when will I see the Shaw quote in your sig?

'Else you'd be admitting that 'Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe'....


C'mon, Meds, either agree with Shaw about 'liquidating' opponents, or throw in the towel.


In case you need a refresher:
1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.

2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” New Statesman - The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

3.

BULLSHIT!
It was bullshit when I made you eat it then and it is still bullshit now!

To refresh your memory, you cut and ran after this post below only to post the same crap in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Oh, my! The language!

You seem to be getting perturbed! That usually means you know you are wrong...

Let's review, multiple sources show what a left wing sociopath Shaw was....and your defense was....'he was being sarcastic...."

Sorry, doesn't stand up to history.

Nor do you.

Oh, I read the link...and?

Now that you've been riddled and ridiculed, ...
,,,finally: how about putting up the Shaw quote about liquidating folks?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbour... humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men."
George Bernard Shaw

Marxism: Opiate of the Intellectuals

Or, was this just a little Shaw joke, as well?

 

[edthecynic]

Of course, you did no such thing...

Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe....

I notice you haven't denied the Kangor quote from "Dupes."

So,...when will I see the Shaw quote in your sig?

'Else you'd be admitting that 'Shaw is demonstrably a 'Potemkin Progressive,' a eugenecist, a left wing dupe'....


C'mon, Meds, either agree with Shaw about 'liquidating' opponents, or throw in the towel.


In case you need a refresher:
1. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.

2. “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” New Statesman - The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

BULLSHIT!
It was bullshit when I made you eat it then and it is still bullshit now!

To refresh your memory, you cut and ran after this post below only to post the same crap in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Oh, my! The language!

You seem to be getting perturbed! That usually means you know you are wrong...

Let's review, multiple sources show what a left wing sociopath Shaw was....and your defense was....'he was being sarcastic...."

Sorry, doesn't stand up to history.

Nor do you.

Oh, I read the link...and?

Now that you've been riddled and ridiculed, ...
,,,finally: how about putting up the Shaw quote about liquidating folks?

Again, how very Alinsky like of you!

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Multiple Right wing whacko sources of REVISIONIST history, you mean, which only proves CON$ lie in packs.

And as the link clearly shows, Shaw never advocated "S"elective breading, he advocated ELECTIVE breading which became known as "Shavian Eugenics." Rather than the "state forced selective breading" you pathological liars parrot, his Shavian Eugenics was a result of women subconsciously selecting the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the elective choice made by women of who they choose mate with, with no state involvement at all.

 

[edthecynic]

"We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbour... humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men."
George Bernard Shaw

Marxism: Opiate of the Intellectuals

Or, was this just a little Shaw joke, as well?

Shaw was a SATIRIST!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbour... humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men."
George Bernard Shaw

Marxism: Opiate of the Intellectuals

Or, was this just a little Shaw joke, as well?

Shaw was a SATIRIST!!!!!!

Calm down...

OK, he was a satirist...I guess that means Stalin was too?

Wow, you guys...lose face, you go berserk!