West's Communist Party claim about Democrats

[Dragon]

It very easy to argue that they are not communists when everyone uses the correct definition of the word instead of lumping everything left of Limbaugh into the communist party.

You mean, when everyone uses the liberal definition of words.

So now I guess all the dictionaries are composed by liberals. Is that what you're saying? Can you get any more preposterous?

 

[bripat9643]

It very easy to argue that they are not communists when everyone uses the correct definition of the word instead of lumping everything left of Limbaugh into the communist party.

You mean, when everyone uses the liberal definition of words.

So now I guess all the dictionaries are composed by liberals. Is that what you're saying? Can you get any more preposterous?

They pretty much are, aren't they? English majors must be at least 90% liberal. I've never met a conservative who majore in English. Who writes dictionaries if not English majors?

that being said, liberals have their own special dictionary where words are defined in such a way that liberalism doesn't look like the pile of irrational manure it is.

Take the word "socialism," for example. According to the liberal dictionary, socialism has never existed on this planet. Everything that was called "socialism" was actually just a con put over on the public. It was really capitalism. That's why it failed.

 

[occupied]

It very easy to argue that they are not communists when everyone uses the correct definition of the word instead of lumping everything left of Limbaugh into the communist party.

You mean, when everyone uses the liberal definition of words.

So now I guess all the dictionaries are composed by liberals. Is that what you're saying? Can you get any more preposterous?

If they will rewrite this to suit them they will rewrite the dictionary too.

Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

You mean, when everyone uses the liberal definition of words.

So now I guess all the dictionaries are composed by liberals. Is that what you're saying? Can you get any more preposterous?

They pretty much are, aren't they? English majors must be at least 90% liberal. I've never met a conservative who majore in English. Who writes dictionaries if not English majors?

that being said, liberals have their own special dictionary where words are defined in such a way that liberalism doesn't look like the pile of irrational manure it is.

Take the word "socialism," for example. According to the liberal dictionary, socialism has never existed on this planet. Everything that was called "socialism" was actually just a con put over on the public. It was really capitalism. That's why it failed.

Not only are you a liar, you are a moronic liar.

You want to change definitions and facts, and you won't be allowed to do so. That's what you are pissed about.

 

[Dragon]

that being said, liberals have their own special dictionary where words are defined in such a way that liberalism doesn't look like the pile of irrational manure it is.

Take the word "socialism," for example. According to the liberal dictionary, socialism has never existed on this planet. Everything that was called "socialism" was actually just a con put over on the public. It was really capitalism. That's why it failed.

I have never encountered a liberal who would agree with your second paragraph (in what it says about socialism, that is). I myself would not. Of course socialism has existed. Several forms of it, depending on exactly how it's defined.

Meanwhile, the definition of "Communism" is not coming out of any "special" dictionary, but from any of several standard ones (Oxford, Webster's, etc.):

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

That is communism. The first is the way Marx would have defined it, referring only to the end stage of social progress according to his theory, while the second is the one in more common usage, whereby the Soviet Union would be considered communist (whereas in Marx's thinking it would not have been).

In the context of this discussion, we're using the second definition. Or rather, all the rational people are, while you are using the one that says anything to the left of Limbaugh is communist. Which, quite obviously, does not fit either of the definitions above.

 

[bripat9643]

that being said, liberals have their own special dictionary where words are defined in such a way that liberalism doesn't look like the pile of irrational manure it is.

Take the word "socialism," for example. According to the liberal dictionary, socialism has never existed on this planet. Everything that was called "socialism" was actually just a con put over on the public. It was really capitalism. That's why it failed.

I have never encountered a liberal who would agree with your second paragraph (in what it says about socialism, that is). I myself would not. Of course socialism has existed. Several forms of it, depending on exactly how it's defined..

Plenty of libs right here in this forum have claimed exactly that. TruthMatters is one of them.

[Meanwhile, the definition of "Communism" is not coming out of any "special" dictionary, but from any of several standard ones (Oxford, Webster's, etc.):

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

That is communism. The first is the way Marx would have defined it, referring only to the end stage of social progress according to his theory, while the second is the one in more common usage, whereby the Soviet Union would be considered communist (whereas in Marx's thinking it would not have been).

In the context of this discussion, we're using the second definition. Or rather, all the rational people are, while you are using the one that says anything to the left of Limbaugh is communist. Which, quite obviously, does not fit either of the definitions above.

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is woefully wrong. Son, you can't change definitions and facts to suit yourself.

 

[occupied]

that being said, liberals have their own special dictionary where words are defined in such a way that liberalism doesn't look like the pile of irrational manure it is.

Take the word "socialism," for example. According to the liberal dictionary, socialism has never existed on this planet. Everything that was called "socialism" was actually just a con put over on the public. It was really capitalism. That's why it failed.

I have never encountered a liberal who would agree with your second paragraph (in what it says about socialism, that is). I myself would not. Of course socialism has existed. Several forms of it, depending on exactly how it's defined.

Meanwhile, the definition of "Communism" is not coming out of any "special" dictionary, but from any of several standard ones (Oxford, Webster's, etc.):

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

That is communism. The first is the way Marx would have defined it, referring only to the end stage of social progress according to his theory, while the second is the one in more common usage, whereby the Soviet Union would be considered communist (whereas in Marx's thinking it would not have been).

In the context of this discussion, we're using the second definition. Or rather, all the rational people are, while you are using the one that says anything to the left of Limbaugh is communist. Which, quite obviously, does not fit either of the definitions above.

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

No they're not.

 

[The T]

bripat is woefully wrong. Son, you can't change definitions and facts to suit yourself.

Still looking in that mirror of self-importance as YOU post Fakey?

 

[bripat9643]

bripat is woefully wrong. Son, you can't change definitions and facts to suit yourself.

I don't Jakey. For one thing, I would never call you a Republican.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But you are not a Republican, bripat, you are a reactionary wimp from the extreme wing nut fringe.

You will never be allowed to change definitions. You will be called out every time you do and made to look foolish.,

 

[Dragon]

Plenty of libs right here in this forum have claimed exactly that. TruthMatters is one of them.

TruthMatters is, frankly, a dimwit. And she does not, by herself, constitute "plenty" of liberals.

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

No, actually no liberals are in favor of #1, nor has anyone ever attempted it, so you can't say it would lead to #2. (Actually you have that backwards; officially, the Soviet Union was trying to get to #1, by way of #2. But see, they were not liberals. They were communists. Liberals are not.)

 

[bripat9643]

Not only are you a liar, you are a moronic liar.

You want to change definitions and facts, and you won't be allowed to do so. That's what you are pissed about.

I simply report the liberal definition of words, which bares no resemblance to the way ordinary rational Americans use words.

Take the word "hate," for instance.

Liberal dictionary:
===============================
hate - facts.

 

[bripat9643]

I have never encountered a liberal who would agree with your second paragraph (in what it says about socialism, that is). I myself would not. Of course socialism has existed. Several forms of it, depending on exactly how it's defined.

Meanwhile, the definition of "Communism" is not coming out of any "special" dictionary, but from any of several standard ones (Oxford, Webster's, etc.):

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

That is communism. The first is the way Marx would have defined it, referring only to the end stage of social progress according to his theory, while the second is the one in more common usage, whereby the Soviet Union would be considered communist (whereas in Marx's thinking it would not have been).

In the context of this discussion, we're using the second definition. Or rather, all the rational people are, while you are using the one that says anything to the left of Limbaugh is communist. Which, quite obviously, does not fit either of the definitions above.

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

No they're not.

Yes, actually they do. For example, libs behave as if your gross income is government property. They see no moral objection to the government taking 100% of incomes above a certain amount.

 

[bripat9643]

But you are not a Republican, bripat, you are a reactionary wimp from the extreme wing nut fringe.

You will never be allowed to change definitions. You will be called out every time you do and made to look foolish.,

Call me out all you like, Fakey. That just gives me more opportunities to point out what sleazy lying scumbags liberals like you are.

 

[occupied]

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

No they're not.

Yes, actually they do. For example, libs behave as if your gross income is government property. They see no moral objection to the government taking 100% of incomes above a certain amount.

Conservatives have no moral objection to starving the poor and the elderly to death and passing the savings on to their billionaire masters along with personally lining up to pleasure them orally. See I can make crazy accusations too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives have no moral objection to starving the poor and the elderly to death and passing the savings on to their billionaire masters along with personally lining up to pleasure them orally. See I can make crazy accusations too.

But unlike conservatives you know they’re crazy.

 

[bripat9643]

Plenty of libs right here in this forum have claimed exactly that. TruthMatters is one of them.

TruthMatters is, frankly, a dimwit. And she does not, by herself, constitute "plenty" of liberals.

Attempting to implement #1 invariably leads to number two, and almost all libs are in favor of #1.

No, actually no liberals are in favor of #1, nor has anyone ever attempted it, so you can't say it would lead to #2.

Anyone who thinks the government's official duties include reducing income inequality implicitly believes that everything you own is government property. There's no logical stopping point between saying inequality is immoral somehow and expropriation of all income above a certain amount and all revenue generating property. Of course, left-wing politicians will never admit that expropriation is their ultimate goal. They are far too shrewd to make such a political blunder. However, I recall one politician telling an audience of his constituents that the rich will have to get over the idea that their property is theirs to keep.

(Actually you have that backwards; officially, the Soviet Union was trying to get to #1, by way of #2. But see, they were not liberals. They were communists. Liberals are not.)

That's just a "chicken or egg" argument. In reality, it doesn't matter which came first. Left-wingers always promise one and then deliver the other. There's no way to get to common ownership without brutal oppression. Anyone who promises it is unmasking himself as an advocate of Stalinism.

 

[bripat9643]

No they're not.

Yes, actually they do. For example, libs behave as if your gross income is government property. They see no moral objection to the government taking 100% of incomes above a certain amount.

Conservatives have no moral objection to starving the poor and the elderly to death and passing the savings on to their billionaire masters along with personally lining up to pleasure them orally. See I can make crazy accusations too.

Your Komrades in here make such accusations on a daily basis - almost invariably in response to any objection to increasing the percentage of my income the government is allowed to take. They obviously believe my gross income is communal property.

 

[occupied]

Yes, actually they do. For example, libs behave as if your gross income is government property. They see no moral objection to the government taking 100% of incomes above a certain amount.

Conservatives have no moral objection to starving the poor and the elderly to death and passing the savings on to their billionaire masters along with personally lining up to pleasure them orally. See I can make crazy accusations too.

Your Komrades in here make such accusations on a daily basis - almost invariably to any objection to increasing the percentage of my income the government is allowed to take. They obviously believe my gross income is communal property.

It's always about you isn't it? When are you going to consider my needs?