Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

[Uncensored2008]

Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

"Communism" is an economic system. It doesn't "kill" anybody.

Armies kill people. Guns and bombs and rockets kill people. Murderers kill people. Economic systems preeeeety much provide a framework for how wealth moves around. That's all they do.

Okay, so communism doesn't kill people, the communists do.

What a glaring insight!

Didn't think it would take so little time for a communism apologist to appear.

Professor Pogo thinks everyone here is as dumb as the freshmen "Social Justice" students he teaches at the community college... Pogo's game is to blatantly lie, but to phrase the lies in academic terms.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, government is socialism; the law is the written form of socialism. You merely don't understand what socialism is. It is not capitalism.

Socialism is usually defined as a socioeconomic system of production.

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

 

[Tehon]

Yes, government is socialism; the law is the written form of socialism. You merely don't understand what socialism is. It is not capitalism.

Socialism is usually defined as a socioeconomic system of production.

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

This is why democrats fail. They think they can alter the political economic superstructure without altering the base out of which the superstructure arises.

 

[JQPublic1]

[
The bastion of American conservatism originated among the ante bellum Southern Democrats. You are correct in ascribing much of the slavery, racism, genocide and hate to them...but. Conservatism is the true culprit...nott party affiliations. Wherever conservatives go...murder, hegemony and White supremacy follows... Looks like most of them became Republicans.

Yes, I know you are a pathological liar, you're a Stalinist after all.

But let's examine your big lie, Herr Goebbels:

You claim that the democrats in the Antebellum South were actually "conservative" so the crimes that your filthy and evil party committed are actually the fault of those who oppose the evil you perpetrate and perpetuate.

So what exactly was "conservative" about you democrats?

Were you advocates of individual rights and liberties? Uh, you actually enslaved other people as if they we Christian bakers You outlawed speech that was contrary to party goals and actually hanged people for opposing the slavery that your vile party held and still holds as the central plank of your shameful party.

Oh, I know, you were "conservative" because the South was all about entrepreneurship and business... Oh wait, that was the North, the Republicans. In fact you scumbag democrats were an agrarian, feudal society where land granted by the state was perpetually held by well connected looters as if they were the Kennedy clan. Is that what you mean by "conservative" Comrade Pot?

Oh, perhaps you vile statist scum were really advocates of private property rights... Except that in democrat controlled Georgia in 1806 you thugs passed a law allowing the well connected looters in the plantation to "appropriate" small hold farms under 50 acres. Is that what you mean by "conservative?"

Let's face it Herr Gobbels, you are simply perpetrating a "big lie" ruse that is so common for you authoritarian pricks. The lie you tell is absurd on it's face, by you rely on the outrageous and ridiculous absurdity of your lie to convince people. Through repetition of your big lie, you turn the simple minded into believers of you vile fiction.

You are a pathological liar, you're a Stalinist after all.

Your limited scope reflects the dire paucity in your knowledge of real history.
The library and the Internet teems with data on the subject.. Most if that data supports my premise... Here are a few of those sources to kickstart your education.

Project MUSE - The Dangerous <i>Isms</i> and the Fanatical <i>Ists</i>: Antebellum Conservatives in the South and the North Confront the Modernity Conspiracy
Russell Kirk and the South - The Imaginative Conservative
"southerners in the conservative tradition retained a deep affection for agricultural life and an aversion to industrialized vocations. Southerners, in Kirk’s estimation, committed themselves to keeping their region free from industrialists’ influence—an influence often associated with wage labor, which inevitably led to societal disorder in the South."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Generally speaking this is true. Hitler had a political system with no real defined economic basis, which is why the Nazis adopted the economic systems of Mussolini, so it is possible for the symbiosis to reverse.

 

[Tehon]

Yes, government is socialism; the law is the written form of socialism. You merely don't understand what socialism is. It is not capitalism.

Socialism is usually defined as a socioeconomic system of production.

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

 

[Tehon]

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Generally speaking this is true. Hitler had a political system with no real defined economic basis, which is why the Nazis adopted the economic systems of Mussolini, so it is possible for the symbiosis to reverse.

I think there is some truth in that. Hitler employed a capitalist system of production but he controlled it. He didn't allow it to dictate Germany's political economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, government is socialism; the law is the written form of socialism. You merely don't understand what socialism is. It is not capitalism.

Socialism is usually defined as a socioeconomic system of production.

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

Our Constitutions are socialism. You are merely special pleading.

This is social-ism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The bastion of American conservatism originated among the ante bellum Southern Democrats. You are correct in ascribing much of the slavery, racism, genocide and hate to them...but. Conservatism is the true culprit...nott party affiliations. Wherever conservatives go...murder, hegemony and White supremacy follows... Looks like most of them became Republicans.

Yes, I know you are a pathological liar, you're a Stalinist after all.

But let's examine your big lie, Herr Goebbels:

You claim that the democrats in the Antebellum South were actually "conservative" so the crimes that your filthy and evil party committed are actually the fault of those who oppose the evil you perpetrate and perpetuate.

So what exactly was "conservative" about you democrats?

Were you advocates of individual rights and liberties? Uh, you actually enslaved other people as if they we Christian bakers You outlawed speech that was contrary to party goals and actually hanged people for opposing the slavery that your vile party held and still holds as the central plank of your shameful party.

Oh, I know, you were "conservative" because the South was all about entrepreneurship and business... Oh wait, that was the North, the Republicans. In fact you scumbag democrats were an agrarian, feudal society where land granted by the state was perpetually held by well connected looters as if they were the Kennedy clan. Is that what you mean by "conservative" Comrade Pot?

Oh, perhaps you vile statist scum were really advocates of private property rights... Except that in democrat controlled Georgia in 1806 you thugs passed a law allowing the well connected looters in the plantation to "appropriate" small hold farms under 50 acres. Is that what you mean by "conservative?"

Let's face it Herr Gobbels, you are simply perpetrating a "big lie" ruse that is so common for you authoritarian pricks. The lie you tell is absurd on it's face, by you rely on the outrageous and ridiculous absurdity of your lie to convince people. Through repetition of your big lie, you turn the simple minded into believers of you vile fiction.

You are a pathological liar, you're a Stalinist after all.

Your limited scope reflects the dire paucity in your knowledge of real history.
The library and the Internet teems with data on the subject.. Most if that data supports my premise... Here are a few of those sources to kickstart your education.

Project MUSE - The Dangerous <i>Isms</i> and the Fanatical <i>Ists</i>: Antebellum Conservatives in the South and the North Confront the Modernity Conspiracy
Russell Kirk and the South - The Imaginative Conservative
"southerners in the conservative tradition retained a deep affection for agricultural life and an aversion to industrialized vocations. Southerners, in Kirk’s estimation, committed themselves to keeping their region free from industrialists’ influence—an influence often associated with wage labor, which inevitably led to societal disorder in the South."

Tell me Herr Goebbels, how is opposition to wage labor "conservative?"

If your big lie had a basis in fact, you Communists would be "conservative."

The idiocy of your fabrication is inherent in the arguments. Conservatives oppose industrialization? Did the ******* moron Marxist that you quoted REALLY have the stupidity to claim that? Indeed he did, as he is preaching to those like you, those utterly lacking in intellectual curiosity who will gulp down any bucket of shit that confirms the prejudices that substitute for reason among you Stalinists.

The Antebellum South was a virtually feudal society where the means of production rested in the hands of a ruling oligarchy. Replace "plantation" with "Silicone Valley" and we have exactly what leftist oligarchs such as Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos promote today. The plantation owners who were also the government depended on the power of the state, the central government to maintain the subjugation of people under the rule of the virtual aristocracy. The Antebellum South was violently opposed to the rise of the mercantile capitalist system in the North, just as you Stalinists are today.

As is generally the case with a big lie program, you depend on the sheer absurdity of your lie, the complete dichotomy between the bullshit you spew and reality, to sell it to the ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Generally speaking this is true. Hitler had a political system with no real defined economic basis, which is why the Nazis adopted the economic systems of Mussolini, so it is possible for the symbiosis to reverse.

I think there is some truth in that. Hitler employed a capitalist system of production but he controlled it. He didn't allow it to dictate Germany's political economy.

Nothing even remotely "capitalist" about the Fascist system that Mussolini developed. The state controlled corporations of Fascism faced no competition from innovators as business was conducted at the pleasure of the state and for the benefit of the state. Corporations under fascism are essentially baronies granted by the ruling powers. While the tutelary "owners" were granted leave to reap profit from the corporations just as Barons under feudalism were, control of direction and who could enter what sector was controlled by the state, effectively the monarchy. There is no "market" under fascism, the state determines the winners and losers.

 

[Tehon]

Socialism is usually defined as a socioeconomic system of production.

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

Our Constitutions are socialism. You are merely special pleading.

This is social-ism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two

That isn't socialism, it is social contract theory. It is the basis for governing society.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in dictionaries, my friend. That is merely political jargon left over from the Cold War. It is irrelevant for the purposes of political-economics.

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

Our Constitutions are socialism. You are merely special pleading.

This is social-ism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two

That isn't socialism, it is social contract theory. It is the basis for governing society.

It is socialism: pertaining to the organization of society. You are merely special pleading a fallacy of false cause or composition.

 

[Pogo]

Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

"Communism" is an economic system. It doesn't "kill" anybody.

Armies kill people. Guns and bombs and rockets kill people. Murderers kill people. Economic systems preeeeety much provide a framework for how wealth moves around. That's all they do.

Okay, so communism doesn't kill people, the communists do.

No doubt, some do.
Just as some capitalists do, just as some anarchists do, just as some Christians do, just as some Muslims do, just as some Buddhists do. Just as some lefthanders do, as some blue-eyed people do, as some Sagittarians do, some people whose names have a Q in them, some people who drive a Nissan, some people who keep a German Shepherd, anything you want, you can list them all day.

But what none of them establishes is a causation. Ergo you don't get to Composition-Fallacy them into a bag. You don't get to apply the noun to the body just because some cherrypicked sample exhibits a cherrypicked trait.

And it's damned arrogant to so cherrypick and then declare oneself the Grahd Poobah Encyclopaedist of all such examples beyond which nothing matters. That's utter bullshit.

What a glaring insight!

Thank you but no biggie. This is pretty basic logic.

Didn't think it would take so little time for a communism apologist to appear.

Wouldn't know. I'm not reading those posts. BOR-ing. For me if the thread starts out with a fallacious premise, then there's no point in pursuing a point that hasn't been made. So I point out that there's no there here. Hence there's no premise since there's no rational point, just a hissyfit of emotional word-bombs where the word-bombist doesn't bother with the trivialities of pesky details like "definitions".

You're welcome.

 

[Tehon]

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

Our Constitutions are socialism. You are merely special pleading.

This is social-ism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two

That isn't socialism, it is social contract theory. It is the basis for governing society.

It is socialism: pertaining to the organization of society. You are merely special pleading a fallacy of false cause or composition.

The definition I use, in the economic sense, is the generally accepted definition. You are expanding it to encompass all forms of social interaction. No purpose can be served by your conflation. It is merely a distraction.

 

[Tehon]

Systems of production form the base of political economics.

Generally speaking this is true. Hitler had a political system with no real defined economic basis, which is why the Nazis adopted the economic systems of Mussolini, so it is possible for the symbiosis to reverse.

I think there is some truth in that. Hitler employed a capitalist system of production but he controlled it. He didn't allow it to dictate Germany's political economy.

Nothing even remotely "capitalist" about the Fascist system that Mussolini developed. The state controlled corporations of Fascism faced no competition from innovators as business was conducted at the pleasure of the state and for the benefit of the state. Corporations under fascism are essentially baronies granted by the ruling powers. While the tutelary "owners" were granted leave to reap profit from the corporations just as Barons under feudalism were, control of direction and who could enter what sector was controlled by the state, effectively the monarchy. There is no "market" under fascism, the state determines the winners and losers.

Private property rights, private profit, wage labor. Nazi Germany was emphatically capitalist. That it was directed to serve the entire German population and not just the few does not alter the form of production.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is the example I will be using.

Wrong. The social contract defines how we will govern ourselves. The laws that spring from it are a consequence of the system of production.

Our Constitutions are socialism. You are merely special pleading.

This is social-ism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two

That isn't socialism, it is social contract theory. It is the basis for governing society.

It is socialism: pertaining to the organization of society. You are merely special pleading a fallacy of false cause or composition.

The definition I use, in the economic sense, is the generally accepted definition. You are expanding it to encompass all forms of social interaction. No purpose can be served by your conflation. It is merely a distraction.

I don't resort to special pleading with a dictionary. Who cares what those of the Opposing View think, if they have nothing but fallacy. All you have is political jargon invented for the Cold War of last millennium, simply Because, the right wing "really is that dumb."

the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers

Subordinating the Individual for the Collective, is Social-ism; thus, socialism.

 

[Pogo]

Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

"Communism" is an economic system. It doesn't "kill" anybody.

Armies kill people. Guns and bombs and rockets kill people. Murderers kill people. Economic systems preeeeety much provide a framework for how wealth moves around. That's all they do.

Communism has killed hundred of millions. Yes, it does kill people. Every. Time.

Unfortunately I've already provided an example that directly refutes that.

Don't know if anyone ever let you know this but posting an emotional bullshit point on the internets, doesn't magically recreate history to make that bulllshit point real. All it does is stick your name next to the bullshit.

I guess that's OK, if you actually like the smell of bullshit....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

"Communism" is an economic system. It doesn't "kill" anybody.

Armies kill people. Guns and bombs and rockets kill people. Murderers kill people. Economic systems preeeeety much provide a framework for how wealth moves around. That's all they do.

Communism has killed hundred of millions. Yes, it does kill people. Every. Time.

Unfortunately I've already provided an example that directly refutes that.

Don't know if anyone ever let you know this but posting an emotional bullshit point on the internets, doesn't magically recreate history to make that bulllshit point real. All it does is stick your name next to it.

You provided nothing because communism is a system where the state is in complete power and has no respect for human life, hence the murder of hundreds of millions. I can't help that you are delusional and dont know history.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Communist:friend: That wasn't REAL Communism, try again!

Degrees and scale- in my family we function pretty well under a loosely identifiable communist structure. To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. In order for communism to work, the participants must all care for one another and share a kindred love. That is quite impossible outside of a family unit.

 

[Pogo]

My question now is why hasn't anyone asked
Kaepernick what he wants? What would it take for him to stand and salute the flag again? Perhaps the media has no interest in the answer.

Seems to me Kaepernick back at the beginning had his personal reason for sitting out the national anthem, a reason that was arrived at individually and could have been any countless number of reasons, and was originally just kept to himself before the media massaged it into a story.

Then when that happened his reasoning came out and there was a little conversation about his issue, and a lot more about "he should STFU". Even though it was a silent protest until it was media-massaged.

That more or less blew over and would have faded into the sunset.

Then the Orange Mange saw an opportunity to demagogue himself into yet-more of that juvenile attention fix he has to have, and stirred the whole hornet's nest up all over again, this time expanding Kaeepernick to the entire body of NFL player personnel --- whether they had had any interest in Kaepernick's issue before or not. At that point it became imperative to resist the personal attack universally, last week.

All of which again stirs up the public curiosity about why any of this is going on in the first place, and there's Kaepernick's personal issue front and center, again.

If this is a cause Colin Kaepernick believes in I'd say he got more mileage out of it than he ever could have bought in a hundred football games. Rump gave him what Rump would call a "ratings boost" (since that's how he sees the world) and it cost Colin Kaepernick absolutely nothing. He did it for free.

Kinda begs the question --- which one of those two is the smart businessman?

This is ultimately what "a man you can bait with a tweet" means.