Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, because then those private industries will still exist. Furthermore, no government run enterprise has ever been able to produce goods and services cheaper and better than the private market.
ROFL! It's government ownership of the means of production, not "popular ownership." what "violate obvious fairness laws?"
Sure they can. They can simply point guns at the owners if they refuse to hand it over.
Says the embarrassing retard complaining about "commies".Although the bitch rhetoric sounds like typical juvenile lefty rhetoric
Preaching to the choir.Condemning communism
No one advocates for ‘communism’ – whatever that’s supposed to be.I am quoting one right here^^^
Curious goat already said he defends communism because he supports it
Yep. Just the resident crazy person, swatting at the imaginary flies only he can see.No one advocates for ‘communism’ – whatever that’s supposed to be.
This is yet another thread of rightwing lies and fearmongering.
There is no proof of rape. Next.
The reason why you have to hijack our rhetoric is because commies like you can't come up with your own. Cheating is natural for lefties.
Communism is alive and thriving right now in San Francisco, where government has taken over private property rights of business owners and is facilitating the looting of these businesses.Communism died in 1989 but you're still talking like it's alive and thriving.
Yes they can and often have throughout historySlaves can't consent you moron. That's called duress. I have all the details I need.
If you chain someone to your room and she agrees to sleep with you in exchange for food that isn't a consensual relationship, even if she initiated the transaction.
Wrong.There is ample proof of rape because Sally Hemmings had no power to say "No" to Jefferson - not ever. ANY sexual relations with Ms. Hemmings are indeed rape, since she had no legal power or authority to refuse him. Their children are proof of rape.
Jefferson chose not to give Ms. Hemmings her freedom, and kept his own children enslaved until his death.
Hijack your rhetoric???? You're fucking delusional. The only rhetoric Republicans have is calling others names. You've got no ideas, no plans, other than cutting taxes and crashing the economy, no platform, and no candidates who can win a general election.
Communism died in 1989 but you're still talking like it's alive and thriving. The danger the world is facing today is fascist authoritarianism, which you, the Republican Party and the owners of right wing billionaire media, are all in favour of.
Then you get all pissy because liberals here aren't playing along with your stupidity and games.
How about you explain how Republicans policies are going to help working Americans.
You think women who are your prisoners can consent to sleeping with you for better treatment? You're one sick fuck.Yes they can and often have throughout history
They often do.You think women who are your prisoners can consent to sleeping with you for better treatment? You're one sick fuck.
Reason would lead people to understand that consent can't ever be given under duress. You have no counter argument to that other than name calling.They often do.
And slave owners can in fact decide to allow and respect consent.
You are one ignorant fool who is strictly reacting based on ideology rather than thinking in a reasonable manner
You started the name calling which proves you have no argument to begin with.Reason would lead people to understand that consent can't ever be given under duress. You have no counter argument to that other than name calling.
Difference is my arguments don't only consist of name calling. I don't really care if you want to call me an ignorant fool, but is that the beginning and end of your argument? That isn't reason. Don't kid yourself. If you want to win an argument on reason then explain away coercion and duress being the antithesis of consent. Agreement itself doesn't imply consent. If a gun man asks you for the keys to your car and you give them to him that isn't consent is it?You started the name calling which proves you have no argument to begin with.
Yes you do present nothing but name calling.Difference is my arguments don't only consist of name calling. I don't really care if you want to call me an ignorant fool, but is that the beginning and end of your argument? That isn't reason. Don't kid yourself. If you want to win an argument on reason then explain away coercion and duress being the antithesis of consent. Agreement itself doesn't imply consent. If a gun man asks you for the keys to your car and you give them to him that isn't consent is it?
Yes you do present nothing but name calling.
you never present a reasoned or valid argument you strictly post assertions with no intelligent argumment
Then you whine like as bitch.
False equivelance.
As I thought. Here it is again.
If you want to win an argument on reason then explain away coercion and duress being the antithesis of consent. Agreement itself doesn't imply consent. If a gun man asks you for the keys to your car and you give them to him that isn't consent is it?
That isn't a rational argument it's begging the question. Why is it a false analogy? Slaves are kept through force as the gunman is using force to compel your keys. You can't obtain consent through force.False equivelance.
Look it up along with cognitive dissonance
All you're doing now is writing fantasy and telling stories while ignoring the facts. Sally was a slave. Her brothers and sisters were slaves. Her children were slaves. Slaves by definition are under duress and can't give consent. Jefferson was a rapist and a slaver. No fantasy you draw up in your imagination will change those facts.Oh come on.
The reason to deny the relationship is obvious, and a product of the time, not the fault of Jefferson.
If he had admitted the relationship, it would have had to retire from politics, which is not something anyone should have wanted him to do.
No one was forced to own slaves, let alone rape the young teenage ones they owned.Slavery was a universal convention the churches backed at the time, so individuals had little recourse.
Is the rational of a slaver and rapist convincing to you?The rational was that people were considered too ignorant and emotional, so needed to be under the guidance of the best.