Root Cause of Most Mass Shootings in America

[Blues Man]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

 

[rightwinger]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

 

[Blues Man]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

 

[rightwinger]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

Oswald was 40 minutes late in coming down.
Nobody knew when the police were going to transfer him.

Ruby was at Western Union 4 minutes prior. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have waited

 

[Blues Man]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

Oswald was 40 minutes late in coming down.
Nobody knew when the police were going to transfer him.

Ruby was at Western Union 4 minutes prior. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have waited

Believe what you want.

The government had a vested interest in offing Oswald. Couldn't have him talking after all

 

[rightwinger]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

Oswald was 40 minutes late in coming down.
Nobody knew when the police were going to transfer him.

Ruby was at Western Union 4 minutes prior. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have waited

Believe what you want.

The government had a vested interest in offing Oswald. Couldn't have him talking after all

If your theory is correct, Oswald would have disappeared immediately after the shooting. There would have been a car waiting for him and he would never be seen again.

Instead, Oswald fled the Texas Schoolbook Depository and took the bus. Not much of a master plan.

 

[Blues Man]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

Oswald was 40 minutes late in coming down.
Nobody knew when the police were going to transfer him.

Ruby was at Western Union 4 minutes prior. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have waited

Believe what you want.

The government had a vested interest in offing Oswald. Couldn't have him talking after all

If your theory is correct, Oswald would have disappeared immediately after the shooting. There would have been a car waiting for him and he would never be seen again.

Instead, Oswald fled the Texas Schoolbook Depository and took the bus. Not much of a master plan.

No the public had to get its bread and circus.

You trust the government way too much

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

Wrong.
The fact Cuba and Russia did not want him, shows they knew he was a government agent pretending to be a communist.

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Oswald went to Russia because he thought they would treat him like a Big Shot Defector and shower him with the attention he craved.

Instead, they ignored him and gave him a minor factory job. That is why he returned after only a few years

He had joined the US military, so then could not have been a communist.
If he was not a super patriot, capitalists, he would never have joined the US military during the Cold War, the early Vietnam war, etc.
Clearly Osward was a fake, only pretending to want to go to Russia or Cuba.

 

[Rigby5]

If it came already with a scope, then it was a WWI era scope, which was awful.
Very low power, like 3x, and very narrow field of vision, like 25 mm.
And it would need careful readjustment to repair it being banged around in shipping.

I agree with you

I think Oswald missed his first shot because he was trying to follow a moving target with that crappy scope.

I believe he may have abandoned the scope and used the rifle sights on the next two shots that killed the President

What makes the conspiracy part believable was that Oswald was killed. That is some whacked security for a major police department.

Only problem is that Ruby was at Western Union sending an electronic cash transfer six minutes before he shot Oswald. The receipt was in his pocket.

Nobody knew when Oswald would be transferred. Why would someone planning to shoot Oswald risk missing the transfer by going to Western Union?

What a perfect cover for an assassin. And don't kid yourself that no one knew. The FBI is leakier than the titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Actually, it was four minutes before he shot Oswald

It is your conspiracy
Explain how and why Ruby would be at Western Union four minutes before Oswald came downstairs if he had planned to be there to shoot Oswald

Because he knew when and where Ruby would be.

Why hang around and draw the attention of anyone?

You have far too much faith in the government.

Oswald was 40 minutes late in coming down.
Nobody knew when the police were going to transfer him.

Ruby was at Western Union 4 minutes prior. If he had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have waited

Believe what you want.

The government had a vested interest in offing Oswald. Couldn't have him talking after all

If your theory is correct, Oswald would have disappeared immediately after the shooting. There would have been a car waiting for him and he would never be seen again.

Instead, Oswald fled the Texas Schoolbook Depository and took the bus. Not much of a master plan.

No, for the assassination conspiracy to work, there had to be a patsy to take the blame.
Otherwise the investigation would continue and the chances of revealing truth would have increased.
If Oswald had survived, then it would have been revealed he knew nothing about communism, had no political beliefs, and was just a patsy.
The question that is of real interest is Ruby, and if he knew he already had terminal cancer?

 

[PredFan]

Two graphs because the first only goes to 2015 and the second starts in 1982.

View attachment 260547
View attachment 260546

Americans have always owned guns. My father and his friends took rifles to school to go rabbit hunting afterwards. Machine guns and even cannons were owned by citizens through much of American history.

So what changed during the 1960’s to start this upward trend?

I’ll offer a theory as to what occurred. If you don’t like it, fine. But offer your own theory as to the catalyst that started this.

Since 1962 school children have no longer been told they are special and we are all created equal in the image of God. This was replaced by teaching children they are no more significant than a tree in a forest. Since then the number of Christians in America has been on the decline, replaced by people who now feel no embarrassment about wanting to murder babies after they are born.

The greatest trick Satan ever played was convincing people he does not exist.

If you don’t like the theory, fine. Then offer your own without the personal attacks.

I agree with that but it’s only part of the picture.

Also:

society and culture that devalues human life.

A society and culture that encourages fame to the point of even infamy.

A culture of violence.

 

[2aguy]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force.
Socialism and communism came up by people like Marx around 1800 because of the abuses of the aristocracy and the wealthy corporate capitalists of the industrial revolution.
Socialism and communism are against strong central government.
If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians.
You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies.
Why do you think we helped Stalin instead of stopping him?
That is because he was actually a total capitalist who murdered all the real communists and socialists.

 

[2aguy]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force.
Socialism and communism came up by people like Marx around 1800 because of the abuses of the aristocracy and the wealthy corporate capitalists of the industrial revolution.
Socialism and communism are against strong central government.
If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians.
You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies.
Why do you think we helped Stalin instead of stopping him?
That is because he was actually a total capitalist who murdered all the real communists and socialists.

And in socialist countries the wealthy elite have all the resources while everyone else eat zoo animals and pick through garbage.....you don't know what you are talking about....you are talking about socialism and communism as if we were in the 1920s before 100 million people were murdered by socialist and communists and entire countries were put into poverty by their policies.....while their socialist and communist elite became wealthy....

Capitalism, free markets and the rule of law have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other system........

You don't know what you are talking about....

Read some Walter William, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and in particular, to really learn how stupid socialism is...read "The Road To Serfdom," by Friedrich Hayek......and you know what...read "The Law," By Friedrich Bastiat......it is a short work and will help you understand why socialism and communism are stupid.

 

[Zorro!]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force...

Fake News. What always occurs is the connected to government get access to all the resources which they hoard, as well as all the wealth. With no incentives, the people stop working and resources become scarce, while the connected to resources become punitive to force people to work. The people begin to starve until violent revolution slaughters the rulers.

We broke this cycle by placing sovereignty in The People, rather than government, removing the need to revolt in order to regain power, because we are already in power. That is why we are the oldest surviving Democracy in the world.

... Socialism and communism are against strong central government...

Fake News. They constantly seek control of the means and fruit of production, which they claim the will redistribute, but which they hoard for themselves.

... If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians...

Fake News. US Libertarians are focused on the securing of individual rights. They have never carried out a bloody revolution like the Marxists whose practice has been bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide. From Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-tung at least 60 million people were killed by communist regimes collectively guilty of holocaust-style felonious homicides.

... You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies...

Fake News, much of this occurred within our life times.

Your dope smoking commie lib professor isn't a trustworthy source. Do your own research. In the meantime if you want to live in a commune, you are free to set one up in America and live in it, but, our Constitution will prevent you from forcing us to participate in it with you, which if you are a Libertarian like you claim, you will be in hearty agreement with.

Do you respect my right to
- Own private property, enjoy the fruit of my labor, and leave my possessions to who I wish, by will?
- Freely Exchange my labor for pay, goods, or services, or to refuse to do so?
- To use lethal self defense to prevent the infliction of grave physical harm on myself or my loved ones?

 

[Zorro!]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force.
Socialism and communism came up by people like Marx around 1800 because of the abuses of the aristocracy and the wealthy corporate capitalists of the industrial revolution.
Socialism and communism are against strong central government.
If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians.
You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies.
Why do you think we helped Stalin instead of stopping him?
That is because he was actually a total capitalist who murdered all the real communists and socialists.

And in socialist countries the wealthy elite have all the resources while everyone else eat zoo animals and pick through garbage.....you don't know what you are talking about....you are talking about socialism and communism as if we were in the 1920s before 100 million people were murdered by socialist and communists and entire countries were put into poverty by their policies.....while their socialist and communist elite became wealthy....

Capitalism, free markets and the rule of law have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other system........

You don't know what you are talking about....

Read some Walter William, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and in particular, to really learn how stupid socialism is...read "The Road To Serfdom," by Friedrich Hayek......and you know what...read "The Law," By Friedrich Bastiat......it is a short work and will help you understand why socialism and communism are stupid.

Communism/Socialism routinely fail to feed their people, which is a fundamental failure.

 

[Zorro!]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

So do what you want. In our system you just can't force anyone to join in that doesn't want to, which apparently you are totally fine with, so knock yourself out.

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force.
Socialism and communism came up by people like Marx around 1800 because of the abuses of the aristocracy and the wealthy corporate capitalists of the industrial revolution.
Socialism and communism are against strong central government.
If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians.
You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies.
Why do you think we helped Stalin instead of stopping him?
That is because he was actually a total capitalist who murdered all the real communists and socialists.

And in socialist countries the wealthy elite have all the resources while everyone else eat zoo animals and pick through garbage.....you don't know what you are talking about....you are talking about socialism and communism as if we were in the 1920s before 100 million people were murdered by socialist and communists and entire countries were put into poverty by their policies.....while their socialist and communist elite became wealthy....

Capitalism, free markets and the rule of law have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other system........

You don't know what you are talking about....

Read some Walter William, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and in particular, to really learn how stupid socialism is...read "The Road To Serfdom," by Friedrich Hayek......and you know what...read "The Law," By Friedrich Bastiat......it is a short work and will help you understand why socialism and communism are stupid.

That's ridiculous.
The US is incredibly socialist, with public schools, roads, harbors, parks, museums, pensions, unemployment compensation, etc.
The success of the US is due to its socialism.
Russia has nothing at all to do with socialism or communism.
You certainly are not communal, collaborative, or cooperative unless you are a democratic republic.
Russia is a dictatorship, and therefore is capitalist by design.
The point of a dictatorship is always to maximize profits for the wealthy elite, and that can never remotely be socialist or communist.

Capitalism is about maximizing individual profits.
Communism is about sharing vital resources.
Obviously then it is capitalism behind every dictatorship.
And all real democracies would choose to be communist.
Russia is one of the most capitalist countries in the world, and the US is highly communist.

 

[Rigby5]

In my lifetime, I have seen a transition in the shootings

In the 60s and 70s it was assasination
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Reagan, Ford..

In the 70s and 80s it became serial killings
Son of Sam, BTK, Zodiak killer, DC Sniper

After the 80s it became mass killers
Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Parkland

Change in family structure after the 70s, more broken homes with fatherless boys raised by single mothers, and the advent of social media and the spread of fame and techniques of mass shooters.

Doesn’t account for the transition from assasination to serial killer to mass killer

Kennedy's shooter.....father died before he was born......broken home....

There is perhaps nothing crazier in the modern historical profession than the refusal of people who really should know better to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered JFK for political reasons. He was also unhinged, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Oswald was a Communist. He had previously defected to the USSR, but was allowed to return after growing disillusioned. He then became a partisan of the Cuban Revolution, and visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico, trying to defect to Cuba. He was very angry about hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba, and before he killed JFK tried to kill well-known anti-Communist Edwin Walker.

Yet somehow, every November, instead of reminding us of these facts, “mainstream” historians gaslight us and sometimes explicitly state that JFK was the victim of “right wing hate.” They then complain in other contexts about how conservatives purportedly won’t accept “reality.”

The left spent the 1950s and early 60s decrying McCarthyism as a “witch hunt,” i.e., not just that McCarthy was a lying demagogue (which he was), but that there was no domestic Communist threat, whatsoever. Acknowledging that a domestic Communist assassinated a beloved Democrat president ruins the witch-hunt narrative. That narrative has been a huge propaganda advantage for decades, and the won't let it go.

Huh..gotta admit..I never have once heard that JFK was a victim of Right-wing anything. I've always held the view that Oswald was acting as an agent of USSR...JFK had the Kremlin seriously worried that he was going to start..and win..a nuclear war. As we know now..the USSR was a paper tiger as regards its nuclear forces. JFK just wouldn't stop pushing.
So they had a mentally disturbed ex-marine defector with a Russian wife--who better to pull a trigger--Jack Ruby's killing Oswald clipped the loose end...and Ruby's death made it the perfect crime.

Anyone would have been better than someone with a Russian wife.
And Russia was not at all afraid of Kennedy.
Kennedy was much more leftist than the pentagon or the Dulles brothers.
Kennedy is the last person that Russia would have wanted dead.
Kennedy had given in to the Russians on the Cuban MIssile Crisis, and removed our nuclear ICBMs from Turkey.
Kennedy was the most pro-Russia president we ever had.

It doesn't change the fact that JKF was murdered by a communist.

No, Oswald was a US veteran who likely was pretending to want to work for Russia or Cuba, and saw through the ploy.
If he really was a communist, then he would have gone to a country with a large communist party, like Sweden, Italy, France, etc.

Obviously you don't want to believe that Communist murdered JFK, even though it is an historical fact.

How are you on the fact that a Palestinian murdered RFK?

There are lots of communists in the US and Europe.
Have you ever heard of one of them wanting to go to Russia or Cuba?
Of course not, because Russia and Cuba were never remotely communists.
There was nothing communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It fails constantly, and with each failure we are assured that if only the sophomore class as Santa Cruz state could implement it, that it would be utopia. History, on the other hand, more strongly supports the finding that Utopians are Murderers.

Here are the facts:

In order to make sure everything is "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative" there is a small group that controls a large group, who claim they will wondrously use their authority only for the good of everyone. That's a lie. They use their power to secure wonderful things for themselves and those that are connected to the group that has assumed control.

Our Framers identified this and dispensed with it by explaining that for angels, seperation of power, checks and balances are not necessary, but men are not angels and cannot be trusted with unchecked power.

Now, back to your fraud. Once people realize that effort gets them nothing more, and nothing less than the slothful, everyone quits working, which puts the lifestyle of the small group at the top at risk. When they are at risk, they reach for the whip.

When a small group uses force to control a large group, at some point there will be violent revolution and the large group will slaughter the small group.

Interestingly, William Bradford brought both Communism/Socialism and Free Labor/Free Markets to the New World, and he got both out of the bible. The Plymouth Rock Colony first tried socialism, based on a passage in Acts, and it failed miserably, with empty stomachs, they starved and died. Interestingly, this community in Acts also fell on terrible times of want and had to be bailed out with charitable giving by the other Churches in Asia Minor.

Bradford, at a complete loss, but honest enough to admit error, went back to the scriptures, and found Jesus' parable of "The Talents" and Bradford changed approach, now each person had their own plot, they could produce as they wished, trade freely, and keep the gains of their industry. Productive labor dramatically increased and the colony thrived.

Our Constitutional system is the oldest surviving democracy in the world, and one of the oldest surviving governments in the world. By guaranteeing that Sovereign Power is held by The People, rather than the government, the large group has no need for violent revolution in order to regain power, because we already have the power.

Now, our rights are quite an annoyance to the wanna be totalitarians, but, that's tough shit. In our Constitutional system you will never be able to force others to participate in your failed social experiments. If you want to form a voluntary system that is "communal, collective, collaborative, and cooperative" you are free to do so. So, what's stopping you? Go do it and show us all how "wonderful" it is.

Wrong.
First of all, communism and socialism do not require everything to be "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".
Second is that as long as it is kept local, then you can't get a distant and unresponsive group in control who does what they want.
Look at any union and you never see that happening because if those with delegated authority get out of hand, then they are voted out.
The only way they can then get abusive is if they no longer allow elections, and then they are not "communal, collective, collaborative, or cooperative".

You are totally wrong.
Under socialism and communism, more efforts gets you more results.
The only thing socialism or communism does is ensure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When each person has their own plot of land and can grow what they want, that is socialism.
Under capitalism one person uses force to control all the land and not allow anyone else to grow anything.
There is no profit in everyone having their own plot, because then they are self sufficient and don't have to buy anything.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't even understand capitalism and socialism...you doofus.....

Socialism has the government controlling all the land, you dumb ass, not capitalism.....

You really should try learning about capitalism and socialism.....you have it all mixed up.

Wrong.
The whole point of communism and socialism is to ensure individuals all get access instead of all the resources being hoarded by the wealthy elite who control the means of force...

Fake News. What always occurs is the connected to government get access to all the resources which they hoard, as well as all the wealth. With no incentives, the people stop working and resources become scarce, while the connected to resources become punitive to force people to work. The people begin to starve until violent revolution slaughters the rulers.

We broke this cycle by placing sovereignty in The People, rather than government, removing the need to revolt in order to regain power, because we are already in power. That is why we are the oldest surviving Democracy in the world.

... Socialism and communism are against strong central government...

Fake News. They constantly seek control of the means and fruit of production, which they claim the will redistribute, but which they hoard for themselves.

... If you look at the Bolshevik revolution, you will find that the main players were the Anarchists, who did not believe in coerceive government at all. The closest to them these days, would be the Libertarians...

Fake News. US Libertarians are focused on the securing of individual rights. They have never carried out a bloody revolution like the Marxists whose practice has been bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide. From Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-tung at least 60 million people were killed by communist regimes collectively guilty of holocaust-style felonious homicides.

... You have been totally taken in by the anti communist propaganda, which is all lies...

Fake News, much of this occurred within our life times.

Your dope smoking commie lib professor isn't a trustworthy source. Do your own research. In the meantime if you want to live in a commune, you are free to set one up in America and live in it, but, our Constitution will prevent you from forcing us to participate in it with you, which if you are a Libertarian like you claim, you will be in hearty agreement with.

Do you respect my right to
- Own private property, enjoy the fruit of my labor, and leave my possessions to who I wish, by will?
- Freely Exchange my labor for pay, goods, or services, or to refuse to do so?
- To use lethal self defense to prevent the infliction of grave physical harm on myself or my loved ones?

That is silly.
All you are saying is that corrupt capitalist constantly try and succeed in subverting anything government is used for.
That does not make socialism bad, but capitalism.