Condemning communism

[EvMetro]

Republicans have always been the biggest safe space needing mother fuckers.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
Neither communism nor socialism require no private enterprise to exist.

Neither communism nor socialism ever defines government control. They ONLY define popular control. That is implied in the words socialist and communist, that they are of, by, and for the people only, not some isolated and arbitrary authoritarian dictatorship.

Without strong government regulations, wealthy corporate owners can enforce economic slavery, with child labor, unsafe work conditions, etc., like Amazon making people work during a tornado.
Socialism is just where you pass laws to prevent those sorts of abuses, and does not at all require government ownership of businesses.

Communism and socialism do not have a mechanism that would allow them to "simply point guns at the owner's if they refuse to hand it over".
To take private property by force requires something other than communism or socialism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Although the bitch rhetoric sounds like typical juvenile lefty rhetoric

Says the embarrassing retard complaining about "commies".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Condemning communism

Preaching to the choir.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am quoting one right here^^^

Curious goat already said he defends communism because he supports it

No one advocates for ‘communism’ – whatever that’s supposed to be.

This is yet another thread of rightwing lies and fearmongering.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one advocates for ‘communism’ – whatever that’s supposed to be.

This is yet another thread of rightwing lies and fearmongering.

Yep. Just the resident crazy person, swatting at the imaginary flies only he can see.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is no proof of rape. Next.

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.

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.

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.

 

[EvMetro]

Communism died in 1989 but you're still talking like it's alive and thriving.

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.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Slaves 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.

Yes they can and often have throughout history

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Wrong.

Lack of legal power does not mewan she did not consent nor does it mean it was forced.

TYhe USSR died in 89 thanks to Reagan but the ideology lives on.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes they can and often have throughout history

You think women who are your prisoners can consent to sleeping with you for better treatment? You're one sick fuck.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You think women who are your prisoners can consent to sleeping with you for better treatment? You're one sick fuck.

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

 

[Curried Goats]

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

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.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

You started the name calling which proves you have no argument to begin with.

 

[Curried Goats]

You started the name calling which proves you have no argument to begin with.

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?

 

[Soupnazi630]

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

 

[Curried Goats]

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.

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?

 

[Soupnazi630]

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?

False equivelance.

Look it up along with cognitive dissonance

 

[Curried Goats]

False equivelance.

Look it up along with cognitive dissonance

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.

 

[Curried Goats]

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.

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.

Slavery was a universal convention the churches backed at the time, so individuals had little recourse.

No one was forced to own slaves, let alone rape the young teenage ones they owned.

The rational was that people were considered too ignorant and emotional, so needed to be under the guidance of the best.

Is the rational of a slaver and rapist convincing to you?