Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,850
- 2,250
Hey....let's catch you in another lie!
Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?
Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.
This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:
PoliticalChic said:Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf
Post 79
That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.
You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.
And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.
Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.
Hey....let's catch you in another lie!
Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?
Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.
This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:
PoliticalChic said:Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf
Post 79
That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.
You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.
And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.
Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.
"You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica (sic) saying nothing you did.
Oooo....let's see what you left out:
This is really what post #79 said:
Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf
"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."
Caught you again, huh?
Again, for the fourth time, dipshit....that's not a link. That's a folder on your own hard drive. None of us can verify anything on your hard drive without physically pushing you out of your chair, sitting in front of your computer and typing on your keyboard.
You've offered us nothing verifying anything you've said. With the actual link to Encyclopedia Britannica you did offer not matching any of your citation. And you later admitting that you knew Encyclopedia Britanicca online didn't include your quote.
Meaning you knew your link was a lie when you offered it. But this time we're expected to take your word for it? Sorry, you've already proven yourself a liar on this exact issue. You'll need a link.
Not a folder on your harddrive. Try again. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.
Books Mises Institute
You'll find that I'm never wrong.
Says the woman that posted a link to a folder in her own harddrive to back up her citation.
And you have yet to show me any citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead, you cite a book from 1954 from a guy called 'Chesly Manly', with no bibliography or footnotes verifying anything it claims. An unsourced 'quote' from sometime in the 30s in a book from the 50s by an author who you know nothing about is your 'proof'?
Nope.
And still can't explain how socialism and communism are the 'same' when socialism allows for private property while communiism abolishes it.
Or explain how democrats are 'socialists and communists' when almost none of them advocate the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.
Keep running.