PDA

View Full Version : Why must communists try to co-opt institutions or ideas?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-25-2010, 02:51 PM
It seems every good idea we've had--Environmentalism, Feminism, Gay Rights, even yes some Social Programs--were kind of at some point co-opted by Communists and twisted into amplified economic/social battles; class warfare. I don't think environmentalism, for example, began as communism, and it's goals (Environmentalism to me means a basic respect, appreciation for and upkeep of the environment for future generations--IE, not mowing down all the rainforests, saving areas of natural beauty), Feminism (They twisted the idea of feminism from a good, noble one--a liberation of women from being viewed as inferio to menr--and turned it into women weren't inferior, but instead now they're marketing, sex objects, the sexualization of children, etc--Everything that's wrong with our society today in terms of how we view and treat women); Gay rights (Started off as let's be tolerant toward gays, now is "Let's make this a gay vs. evil bigots issue; Let's push open, up front homosexuality in every facet of our culture including the military"), Social welfare programs (started off as a safety net for those who needed it, instituted in desperate times, the communists have made it a key form of cultural and economic warfare pitting class against class).

It just seems like communists, whether economic Marxists or social Marxists, have hijacked a lot of good ideas and given them either a demented, divisive twist, or given them bad names. I mean to me, environmentalism shouldn't equal "Green nut who loves the earth more than people"--There should be balance, just like in the other areas.

Why do they have to co-opt and hijack our better ideas? Why does EVERYTHING have to go back to class and social warfare for communists?

I don't get the mindset.

Bailey
09-25-2010, 03:09 PM
Why dont you go out and get laid?

hampshirebrit
09-25-2010, 03:13 PM
Why do they have to co-opt and hijack our better ideas? Why does EVERYTHING have to go back to class and social warfare for communists?

I don't get the mindset.

That's what they do. They do so because they want power. That's their mindset.

BadCat
09-25-2010, 03:25 PM
Why dont you go out and get laid?

HAHAHA!

Do a search of his threads about his "girlfriend".

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-25-2010, 03:26 PM
Why dont you go out and get laid?

Why does what I say or do bother you so much?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-25-2010, 03:32 PM
Even the space program--Once a program dedicated to expanding our knowledge of space, of the earth itself, of the stars; Now it's foremost job is "Muslim outreach." I kid you not--Under Obama, that is now NASA's foremost goal.

Bailey
09-25-2010, 05:22 PM
Why does what I say or do bother you so much?

I am not trying to break your stones, you seem to be pent up.


I really dislike block heads like yourself that say(mulitple times) that you are going to leave a site and then dont.

warpig
09-25-2010, 05:55 PM
It seems every good idea we've had--Environmentalism, Feminism, Gay Rights, even yes some Social Programs

the following "Current Communist Goals,"as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:


25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Ree
09-25-2010, 06:10 PM
I am not trying to break your stones, you seem to be pent up.


I really dislike block heads like yourself that say(mulitple times) that you are going to leave a site and then dont.
Did he write an Opus?

Sonnabend
09-25-2010, 07:49 PM
Why does what I say or do bother you so much?

Because you make Bouncy Ball look like a rank amateur?

NJCardFan
09-25-2010, 08:52 PM
OK, now I'm convinced. We don't here from this clown all summer long and now school is back in session and lo and behold, here he is again with more schoolwork.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-25-2010, 09:01 PM
OK, now I'm convinced. We don't here from this clown all summer long and now school is back in session and lo and behold, here he is again with more schoolwork.

Except I'm taking a semester off.

NJCardFan
09-25-2010, 09:24 PM
Except I'm taking a semester off.

Then you're stockpiling material.

Rockntractor
09-25-2010, 09:29 PM
Then you're stockpiling material.
Read his posts this year and then read them from a year ago, he is becoming more conservative.
I would like to think we are a good influence on him. Give him credit where it is due.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-25-2010, 09:44 PM
OK, now I'm convinced. We don't here from this clown all summer long and now school is back in session and lo and behold, here he is again with more schoolwork.


Then you're stockpiling material.

Considering when I go back I'm most likely going to be taking up business as a major, I don't really see how communism co-opting our good ideas or the members of conservativegrounds' members opinions on it will figure into it.

I'm the kind of person who enjoys learning on different things, even if that topic has nothing to do with what I'm studying. I love reading about astronomy, but have no interest in becoming an astronomer.

Sonnabend
09-25-2010, 11:06 PM
Considering when I go back I'm most likely going to be taking up business as a major

*choke*

*gag*

If your business studies are as successful as your history courses have been, expect to be bankrupt in a year.

m00
09-26-2010, 01:27 AM
the following "Current Communist Goals,"as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:


25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

m00
09-26-2010, 01:27 AM
Considering when I go back I'm most likely going to be taking up business as a major

Why?!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-26-2010, 05:18 AM
Why?!

Because I love the field of business. It's a field that's always moving, there's always some activity. Companies are the real creators of things in our society. Everything you watch, listen to, see on TV--It all has some corporate interest behind it. I think I'd like to be in the entertainment business--computer games.

Sonnabend
09-26-2010, 08:12 AM
I think I'd like to be in the entertainment business--computer games.

If you cant handle the mild criticism you get here without calling people "stalkers', then you have no idea as to what awaits you. Angry customers and difficult clients are MUCH worse.

Molon Labe
09-26-2010, 09:30 AM
Why do they have to co-opt and hijack our better ideas? Why does EVERYTHING have to go back to class and social warfare for communists?

I don't get the mindset.


Because that's how the crafty a holes move along the social order to their endstate.

Hegelian dialectic - Marxist dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic)

Nubs
09-26-2010, 10:42 AM
Why must communists try to co-opt institutions or ideas?

It is the nature of communism. Communism has no ability to create something out of nothing. It needs an institution to be created then take it over. Name me one country that is orgianically communist.

m00
09-26-2010, 01:00 PM
Because I love the field of business. It's a field that's always moving, there's always some activity. Companies are the real creators of things in our society. Everything you watch, listen to, see on TV--It all has some corporate interest behind it. I think I'd like to be in the entertainment business--computer games.

Then I don't know why you are getting a business degree. Unless the plan is to make 50 million (in some other industry) and then start your own studio. :p

CueSi
09-26-2010, 03:06 PM
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Yep. . .based on that alone, the commies have owned colleges for YEARS. The sculptures on FIU/Miami Dade College's campus are AWFUL.

~QC

Apache
09-26-2010, 03:50 PM
the following "Current Communist Goals,"as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:


25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Exactly! Communism does co-op these, they create them....

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 11:32 AM
You were born in 1990 weren't you? No sense of history whatsoever.

You realize the only reason this country isn't complete shit for anyone who works for a living is because of socialists.

Did you know the only reason there is an 8-9-hour work day, a minimum wage and child labor laws are because of Socialists in the United States? Big business fought very hard against these laws but socialists organized workers to demand their rights.

Last but not least, all of these ideas you are talking about come from socialists/leftists to begin with .They aren't co-opting these ideas, they create them. The establishment suppresses ideas such as these.


It seems every good idea we've had--Environmentalism, Feminism, Gay Rights, even yes some Social Programs--were kind of at some point co-opted by Communists and twisted into amplified economic/social battles; class warfare. I don't think environmentalism, for example, began as communism, and it's goals (Environmentalism to me means a basic respect, appreciation for and upkeep of the environment for future generations--IE, not mowing down all the rainforests, saving areas of natural beauty),

What are you talking about?: How is environmentalism communism? Are you calling anything that big business doesn't like communism?






Feminism (They twisted the idea of feminism from a good, noble one--a liberation of women from being viewed as inferio to menr--and turned it into women weren't inferior, but instead now they're marketing, sex objects, the sexualization of children, etc--Everything that's wrong with our society today in terms of how we view and treat women);

What on earth are you talking about. You have literally no idea what you're posting. marketing, sexual objectivization, sexualization of children, these are all horrible things that feminism fights against. In fact, it's from feminism that most of the criticisms of these things come from.

Don't confuse the history of a subject with your own shoddy history of poor learning it.



Gay rights (Started off as let's be tolerant toward gays, now

No. Stop there. THere was never some progression of goals, there was original goals and "tolerance" was not one of them. Again, you are confusing your own poor understanding of it with the chronology of real history.

I don't believe that Calculus was invented when I was in high school because that's when I first learned it.


is "Let's make this a gay vs. evil bigots issue; Let's push open, up front homosexuality in every facet of our culture including the military"),

What does being "tolerant" mean to you? It doesn't just mean resisting the urge to tie a gay to your truck and drag him down the road.


Social welfare programs (started off as a safety net for those who needed it, instituted in desperate times, the communists have made it a key form of cultural and economic warfare pitting class against class).

Is this just a master troll or are you really this dense?


It just seems like communists, whether economic Marxists or social Marxists, have hijacked a lot of good ideas and given them either a demented, divisive twist, or given them bad names. I mean to me, environmentalism shouldn't equal "Green nut who loves the earth more than people"--There should be balance, just like in the other areas.

Let me guess: you're a young, 19 year old kid, likely from the suburbs, growing up with a decent middle-of-the-road education possibly starting his first year of college.

Now, don't start making arguments based on "what you've heard" unless you want to be laughed out of your school.

If you want to understand how these ideas really developed, took shape, where they came from, and how they are in their present form today you're going to have to do a little thinking and research on your own. Read the original texts for God's sake, that's a bare minimum. Read critiques, read analyses, read other authors and you'll get an idea of what all this is about. It sounds like you're following the television for your cultural education and I'm sorry but that's simply lowest common denominator.

If you are interested in Feminism, try reading some actual feminist writers: Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex ; Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique ; try Evelyn Reed.




Why do they have to co-opt and hijack our better ideas? Why does EVERYTHING have to go back to class and social warfare for communists?

I don't get the mindset.

Of course you don't get it, you don't unnderstand anything about it yet you're forming complex easily falsified theories about reality.

You're ripe on your way to becoming like every other mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging grunting retard on this website.



Here's something to think about:

Afghanistan circa 1980:

http://i54.tinypic.com/312wkmw.jpg

Afghanistan Today:

http://i53.tinypic.com/mwwb5e.jpg

Do you know what's changed between then and now?



Here's another Afghanistan pic, then and now:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2uj095y.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 11:37 AM
Why dont you go out and get laid?

Also this forever. Dude seriously, I'm a huge nerd even I was getting some every other day my first 2 years of college.

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 11:38 AM
Because that's how the crafty a holes move along the social order to their endstate.

Hegelian dialectic - Marxist dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic)

Oh snap....

the secrets...are getting out....


For real though this link is p much right

Nubs
09-27-2010, 11:38 AM
So you have established by pictoral evidence that Socialism in better than a Muslim Theocractic State. So could you show by pictoral evidence that Socialism is better than a Capatalistic State?

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 11:46 AM
Even the space program--Once a program dedicated to expanding our knowledge of space, of the earth itself, of the stars; Now it's foremost job is "Muslim outreach." I kid you not--Under Obama, that is now NASA's foremost goal.

No. God stop believing shit you see on television or anything someone says if they clearly are stupid.

Bush Sr used Nasa for "Muslim outreach". So did Reagan!

You're making a fool of yourself. I hope to God you don't talk about this stuff in real life to actual people.

Molon Labe
09-27-2010, 11:54 AM
Oh snap....

the secrets...are getting out....


For real though this link is p much right

what secrets?

the average person doesn't understand how backwards Marx dialectic materialism is.

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 12:00 PM
what secrets?

the average person doesn't understand how backwards Marx dialectic materialism is.

the average person would draw a blank, drooling, cow-eye stare if you asked them about Hegelian Dialectics or dialectic materialism

CaughtintheMiddle1990
09-27-2010, 12:20 PM
Why?!


the average person would draw a blank, drooling, cow-eye stare if you asked them about Hegelian Dialectics or dialectic materialism

You realize that communism doesn't work, right?

Molon Labe
09-27-2010, 12:46 PM
the average person would draw a blank, drooling, cow-eye stare if you asked them about Hegelian Dialectics or dialectic materialism

Yes...that is why it works, but not how you'd like it to. Marxist's are worse IMO. They understand it and twist it and then believe they know how to use it. Makes me wonder what their true goal is because it sure isn't egalitarianism.
Remember Huxley's vision ... where we are and where we are going the next time you post something about how great some labor law is because of socialists.

The irony of this is that it's modern use is the ultimate demise of classically liberal institutions in favor of being employed by political parties and eltists who have no interest in true liberty.
Instead of seeking truth we now play games of finding synthesis pitting one group against another ad inifinitum. Laugh out loud irony!

And here's the kicker....that which Hegel and Marx never envisioned. All of it ends in Tyranny. Orwell's vision ends in boot in the face Fascism Huxley's vision ends in idicocratic passive narcissitic Socialism. It's a combination of the two... The carrot distracts you forever from the stick.

Molon Labe
09-27-2010, 01:14 PM
Here's some great articles on how other's besides Communists co opt institutions and ideas

http://www.thedailybell.com/619/Hegelian-Dialectic.html

Even old Obama's buddy Rahm understands this. Never waste a good crisis. ;)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread447068/pg1://

Odysseus
09-27-2010, 01:16 PM
You were born in 1990 weren't you? No sense of history whatsoever.
Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. But at least he is asking intelligent questions and not repeating demonstrably false dogmas. For example:

You realize the only reason this country isn't complete shit for anyone who works for a living is because of socialists.

Did you know the only reason there is an 8-9-hour work day, a minimum wage and child labor laws are because of Socialists in the United States? Big business fought very hard against these laws but socialists organized workers to demand their rights.
The 8-9 hour work day was driven by market forces. Expanded productivity led to shorter workdays and weeks, not socialism. Minimum wages, OTOH, are driven by socialism, and they serve to restrict the number of entry-level jobs by making them more expensive. Young, unemployed men who can't get their first job because unskilled labor isn't worth the minimum wage can thank socialists for their lack of jobs. Child labor laws were imposed because of the Great Depression. The collapse of the job market made adults had so desperate for work that they would take jobs for the same wage as children. So, in two out of the three cases that you cite, it wasn't socialism but free markets that made us freer, and the one case that you cite that was caused by socialism, the solution made things worse.


Last but not least, all of these ideas you are talking about come from socialists/leftists to begin with .They aren't co-opting these ideas, they create them. The establishment suppresses ideas such as these.
This is true, but not because they cared about any of these things. Socialists/leftists wanted to control the economy. They knew that their agenda was unpopular, so they masked it in other areas where they felt that they were more likely to get a better hearing. Environmentalism, for example, placed government controls on the economy in the name of protecting nature, but much of the science behind it is, at best, faulty. From the DDT bans to the current Global Warming hysteria, shoddy science has been used to justify policies that did nothing for the environment, but expanded controls by government. Feminism broke up families and led to increased government intervention in the raising and socializing of children, as did social welfare programs. These also undermined the moral constraints against socialism, as did the push for gay rights. Anything that made people less dependent on each other and more dependent on the state was an imperative. They started out sounding moderate, but gradually assumed their current character as freedom-crushing, state-expanding dogmas, with the added benefit of providing buzzwords for attacking opponents. Oppose racial proflining in traffic stops? You're a good progressive. Oppose racial profiling for college admissions, hiring or allocations of tax dollars? You're a bigot. Question the science of global warming? You're a "climate denier." Oppose opening up the military to a culture that will disrupt order and discipline? Homophobic. Every one of these epithets is meant to end debate and villify the opponents. That's why you do it.


What are you talking about?: How is environmentalism communism? Are you calling anything that big business doesn't like communism?
See above.

What on earth are you talking about. You have literally no idea what you're posting. marketing, sexual objectivization, sexualization of children, these are all horrible things that feminism fights against. In fact, it's from feminism that most of the criticisms of these things come from.
Feminists don't oppose sexualizing children. Far from it. They are among the most avid proponents of the various gay and gender studies programs being implemented in grade school, and their manipulation of the very idea of gender is meant to confuse children and make them fair game for subsequent indoctrination.

Don't confuse the history of a subject with your own shoddy history of poor learning it.
Look who's talking.

Let me guess: you're a young, 19 year old kid, likely from the suburbs, growing up with a decent middle-of-the-road education possibly starting his first year of college.

Of course you don't get it, you don't unnderstand anything about it yet you're forming complex easily falsified theories about reality.

You're ripe on your way to becoming like every other mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging grunting retard on this website.
I.e., questioning the doctrines of the left makes someone a "mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging grunting retard," while blind obedience, the only acceptable standard for leftists, makes someone a mental giant, at least according to you. Is this how you answer questions in your classroom? Is this how you teach kids to "question authority" when you're in authority?


Here's something to think about:
Afghanistan circa 1980:
Afghanistan Today:
Do you know what's changed between then and now?[/IMG]
The Soviets ran the country for a decade, flattened everything in it, conducted a genocidal war against the people of Afghanistan and left it to the tender mercies of the Taliban (who, BTW, have a similar view of economics, in that they don't care for private property, lending for interest or any other capitalistic ideas)?

CaughtintheMiddle1990,
Communism can't take a challenge. Look at how the conservatives on this site are answering your questions, and compare it to how Wei is answering them. Don't be intimidated by his insults. You're asking intelligent questions that he cannot answer without resorting to insults and ridicule.

Wei Wu Wei
09-27-2010, 01:53 PM
Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. But at least he is asking intelligent questions and not repeating demonstrably false dogmas. For example:

The 8-9 hour work day was driven by market forces. Expanded productivity led to shorter workdays and weeks, not socialism. Minimum wages, OTOH, are driven by socialism, and they serve to restrict the number of entry-level jobs by making them more expensive. Young, unemployed men who can't get their first job because unskilled labor isn't worth the minimum wage can thank socialists for their lack of jobs. Child labor laws were imposed because of the Great Depression. The collapse of the job market made adults had so desperate for work that they would take jobs for the same wage as children. So, in two out of the three cases that you cite, it wasn't socialism but free markets that made us freer, and the one case that you cite that was caused by socialism, the solution made things worse.

No. Expanded productivity wouldn't lead to shorter workdays, it just leads to a devaluing of labor. Now a person EITHER gets paid less (because they are using less time) but the owner extracts just as much labor value out of them or they're paid the same and the owner extracts extra value from them, devaluing the cost of their labor. So, leaving a at a 12-hour shift with new technology exponentially increases their labor output while you don't have to pay them any more than before. This leads to massive upward wealth accumulation because the workers are putting in just as much work as ever, while the owners extract more and more labor while paying them no more for their work.

Tell me, what market force would lead to better working hours?

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2/795953065?page=NewsArticle&id=14466&news_iv_ctrl=1261




In 1883, the average workweek was six, 10-hour days, with 12- to 15-hour days not uncommon in some industries. Workers routinely worked on holidays, and 24-hour workdays were often demanded of workers transferring from day to night shifts.

Working people formed a variety of organizations, all of which made the eight-hour day central to their demands. In addition to specific eight-hour leagues, the Knights of Labor, the major labor federation of the time, made the eight-hour day a central demand. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, a much smaller national formation, arose primarily to organize a drive for the eight-hour day.

This federation, under the influence of militant workers, including socialists, resolved to set May 1, 1886, for a general strike to bring about national legislation on the eight-hour day. The call for this strike swept the country, with local unions of all types enthusiastically taking up the call to strike and demonstrate.

All over the country, radicals took a leading role in this movement. In Chicago, the center of the U.S. labor movement, Knights of Labor head George Schiller, a socialist, joined with the anarchist International Workingmen’s Political Association to organize a strike and demonstration. The IWPA, far from a fringe group, had between 5,000 and 6,000 members in the Chicago area alone.

Their efforts bore fruit on May 1, 1886, when between 400,000 and 500,000 workers demonstrated and struck across the country, including 90,000 in Chicago, shutting down the entire city.



This is true, but not because they cared about any of these things. Socialists/leftists wanted to control the economy. They knew that their agenda was unpopular, so they masked it in other areas where they felt that they were more likely to get a better hearing. Environmentalism, for example, placed government controls on the economy in the name of protecting nature, but much of the science behind it is, at best, faulty. From the DDT bans to the current Global Warming hysteria, shoddy science has been used to justify policies that did nothing for the environment, but expanded controls by government. Feminism broke up families and led to increased government intervention in the raising and socializing of children, as did social welfare programs. These also undermined the moral constraints against socialism, as did the push for gay rights. Anything that made people less dependent on each other and more dependent on the state was an imperative. They started out sounding moderate, but gradually assumed their current character as freedom-crushing, state-expanding dogmas, with the added benefit of providing buzzwords for attacking opponents. Oppose racial proflining in traffic stops? You're a good progressive. Oppose racial profiling for college admissions, hiring or allocations of tax dollars? You're a bigot. Question the science of global warming? You're a "climate denier." Oppose opening up the military to a culture that will disrupt order and discipline? Homophobic. Every one of these epithets is meant to end debate and villify the opponents. That's why you do it.

Oh god here comes the conspiracy ideas about communists trying to take over the goverment through some elaborate multi-century plot that someone people are consistently partaking in. Give me a break, glenn beck comnes on in just over 3 hours, get your fix there.



Feminists don't oppose sexualizing children. Far from it. They are among the most avid proponents of the various gay and gender studies programs being implemented in grade school, and their manipulation of the very idea of gender is meant to confuse children and make them fair game for subsequent indoctrination.

Gender is a social construct.



I.e., questioning the doctrines of the left makes someone a "mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging grunting retard," while blind obedience, the only acceptable standard for leftists, makes someone a mental giant, at least according to you. Is this how you answer questions in your classroom? Is this how you teach kids to "question authority" when you're in authority?

No, questioning is good. Very good. Questioning is receptive, questioning is open, questioning breaks down the walls. However, Asserting an argument, asserting statements based on American cultural mythology, asserting anything without having a proper understanding of the topic is pretty stupid.

If you assert an argument, you should be prepared for it to be taken apart.



The Soviets ran the country for a decade, flattened everything in it, conducted a genocidal war against the people of Afghanistan and left it to the tender mercies of the Taliban (who, BTW, have a similar view of economics, in that they don't care for private property, lending for interest or any other capitalistic ideas)?

Yep, under the soviets they were all progressive and such. Terrible terrible atrocity. So we decided to give tons of high-power weaponry to the religious fundamentalists who were opposed to the Soviets, then we let them kick the soviets out and run the country themselves. Thanks to the firepower we provided them just as a "fuck you" to the soviet union.





CaughtintheMiddle1990,
Communism can't take a challenge. Look at how the conservatives on this site are answering your questions, and compare it to how Wei is answering them. Don't be intimidated by his insults. You're asking intelligent questions that he cannot answer without resorting to insults and ridicule.

I'm usually far more kind and gentle, I try not to insult much. I should ease up a bit, he is only a kid after all.

Of course if you come to Conservative Underground Dot Com, you're going to have people support your conservative beliefs. This place is nothing but a Conservative circle-jerk so don't feel too happy when you get a pump or two from a fellow Republican.

Still though, for real, what's more important than what I say or what anyone says is questioning it all yourself. Always question, if something seems obvious, question that. If someone offends you or seems absurd, examine it. If something feels important, uproot it and see what makes it tick.

Molon Labe
09-27-2010, 02:53 PM
Oh god here comes the conspiracy ideas about communists trying to take over the goverment through some elaborate multi-century plot that someone people are consistently partaking in. Give me a break, glenn beck comnes on in just over 3 hours, get your fix there.

Then don't attack the arguement ad hominem. Critique the conspiracy of ideas as fallacy, if you can.




Gender is a social construct.


Obviously you've never been with a woman. If you are a woman...then vice versa

Either that or you have as much of as limited understanding of science as you accuse others of having for socialism.

Odysseus
09-27-2010, 06:04 PM
No. Expanded productivity wouldn't lead to shorter workdays, it just leads to a devaluing of labor. Now a person EITHER gets paid less (because they are using less time) but the owner extracts just as much labor value out of them or they're paid the same and the owner extracts extra value from them, devaluing the cost of their labor. So, leaving a at a 12-hour shift with new technology exponentially increases their labor output while you don't have to pay them any more than before. This leads to massive upward wealth accumulation because the workers are putting in just as much work as ever, while the owners extract more and more labor while paying them no more for their work.
You really have no concept of how markets work, do you? If you produce more goods in eight hours than you did on a twelve hour shift, then you can afford to cut back hours and achieve the same results. The unit cost for your product drops because it takes less time (i.e., labor) to produce, and in a competitive environment, that cost reduction leads to price reductions. The economic incentives are therefore to run shorter shifts, which cost less, but with increased hourly rates that reflect the skills of the workers who produce more on more complex equipment.

Tell me, what market force would lead to better working hours?
See above.

Oh god here comes the conspiracy ideas about communists trying to take over the goverment through some elaborate multi-century plot that someone people are consistently partaking in. Give me a break, glenn beck comnes on in just over 3 hours, get your fix there.
Oh God, here comes the communist denial of what they've been doing for decades! Let's take one aspect of the left's long march through the culture: Feminism: Antonio Gramsci (with whom I'm sure you're familiar) sought to destroy the culture of the West. He believed that Capitalism was too strong and people too entrenched in their beliefs to ever fully embrace the class warfare of Marxism. Instead, he proposed that western culture be undermined through an indirect attack. He believed, for example, that the family was a bulwark against collectivism, since many of the things that he wanted the state to do were already done by stable families. Therefore, his Communist theory required inducing stresses into nuclear families in order to break them up. He proposed that this be done by inducing women into the workplace instead of family. This meant that the things that women sought in marriage, fideltiy, children, economic stability, etc., had to be undermined. So, he promoted abortion, divorce law reform (to make it easier), changes to social norms (eliminating the stigma of illegitimacy, free love, open marriages), disparaging of traditional gender roles and creation of new forms of marriage, gender identity and the like. The result was to weaken the norms of marriage and family. Communists have done the same thing with every doctrine that they've used to undermine traditional concepts of economic, political or social interaction between free peoples.


Gender is a social construct.
Gramsci couldn't have said it better. In fact, I believe that he did. But it's not a conspiracy that goes back a century, oh no. Can't be that.

BTW, that stuff in your pants isn't a social construct, any more than the plumbing in an apartment house is a social construct.


No, questioning is good. Very good. Questioning is receptive, questioning is open, questioning breaks down the walls. However, Asserting an argument, asserting statements based on American cultural mythology, asserting anything without having a proper understanding of the topic is pretty stupid.
So, in order to denounce asserting an argument, you assert that American cultural mythology (an assertion by itself) is wrong and that anything that doesn't involve a "proper" (in your view) understanding is pretty stupid? Love the arrogance, if not the logic.

If you assert an argument, you should be prepared for it to be taken apart.
Whenever you're ready to start....


Yep, under the soviets they were all progressive and such. Terrible terrible atrocity. So we decided to give tons of high-power weaponry to the religious fundamentalists who were opposed to the Soviets, then we let them kick the soviets out and run the country themselves. Thanks to the firepower we provided them just as a "fuck you" to the soviet union.
The Soviets system was a massive "f*** you" to mankind. The weapons given to the Afghans consisted almost entirely of stinger missiles, which negated the Soviet advantage in helicopters. At the end of the war, after we withdrew our military aid, one faction came to dominate the others, and that faction, the Taliban, was the most anti-American of the bunch. We didn't create them, but they did benefit from our support for the Afghan resistance.

I'm usually far more kind and gentle, I try not to insult much. I should ease up a bit, he is only a kid after all.
On the contrary, you've taught him a great deal about the progressive mindset. Well done. He'll be much better prepared for dealing with your ilk when he gets to college.


I'm Of course if you come to Conservative Underground Dot Com, you're going to have people support your conservative beliefs. This place is nothing but a Conservative circle-jerk so don't feel too happy when you get a pump or two from a fellow Republican.
Yes, Democratic Underground is so much more tolerant of dissenting ideas than we are. :rolleyes:


Still though, for real, what's more important than what I say or what anyone says is questioning it all yourself. Always question, if something seems obvious, question that. If someone offends you or seems absurd, examine it. If something feels important, uproot it and see what makes it tick.
Except for Wei. Wei is not to be questioned, ever. You've seen what happens when you do that. :D

warpig
09-27-2010, 07:02 PM
No. Expanded productivity wouldn't lead to shorter workdays, it just leads to a devaluing of labor. Now a person EITHER gets paid less (because they are using less time) but the owner extracts just as much labor value out of them or they're paid the same and the owner extracts extra value from them, devaluing the cost of their labor. So, leaving a at a 12-hour shift with new technology exponentially increases their labor output while you don't have to pay them any more than before. This leads to massive upward wealth accumulation because the workers are putting in just as much work as ever, while the owners extract more and more labor while paying them no more for their work.

Tell me, what market force would lead to better working hours?

Both communism and unions have always worked toward their goals by divorcing wages from productivity, stifling free market and expropriating and redistributing wealth. All that has ever gotten them is perpetual slavery in the hands of state run economies. Ask the union members in the old USSR.

Molon Labe
09-27-2010, 08:10 PM
Oh God, here comes the communist denial of what they've been doing for decades!

That is my point. It's very easy to label it a conspiracy. But it's a conspiracy of ideas that Marxists and Karl Marx nonetheless, have admitted were keys to advancing "history" along to the inevitable "synthesis" of Communism.

It's like the way that modern apologists like to frame the health care debate.

Is health care a right or a privilege? You get two choices. Make one. :rolleyes:

So forgive us all Wei, if we know the drill because some of us have been studying Marxism and theory for decades.

Gingersnap
09-27-2010, 09:31 PM
Why do they have to co-opt and hijack our better ideas? Why does EVERYTHING have to go back to class and social warfare for communists?

I don't get the mindset.

Marxists (and their ideological descendants) view all human effort as an economic struggle of one kind or another. Marxism is an economic theory first and foremost. It would be peculiar if those supporting the theory didn't view everything through an economic lens.

Most of the attempted hijacking is done not by actual Marxists but by people who have cruised the buffet line of politics, economics, and social theory. They pick a little here and a little there and add a dash of personal story-telling and they have a meal.

If we could do a analytical "nutrition" label for that meal, we'd find that it contained 30% verifiable fact, 60% wishful thinking about human nature, and 10% delusional thinking. Not that this is much different from what you'd find in any social/political/economic theory.

As to why so many groups attempt to insert their messages into otherwise common sense efforts: it's how they keep score and gain power.

Wei Wu Wei
10-01-2010, 12:04 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg

Apache
10-01-2010, 12:21 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg

And....?

CueSi
10-01-2010, 12:44 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg

ARE YOU SERIOUS?????????

You know what, Wei? Fuck off. Fuck your racism card because so many Commies WERE racist as well.

Race card play DENIED.

~QC

Odysseus
10-01-2010, 01:19 PM
You forgot the captions:

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png
Racist Democrats protest in favor of segregation


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg
Taxpayers protest Obama's Socialism

That's better...

ARE YOU SERIOUS?????????

You know what, Wei? Fuck off. Fuck your racism card because so many Commies WERE racist as well.

Race card play DENIED.

~QC
Wei is obsessed with race, which, come to think of it, is a sign of racism...

Wei Wu Wei
10-01-2010, 01:29 PM
more like

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png
Racist and Likely Democrats protest against desegregation, on the ground that it is rooted in communism.

The signs say it clear as day. Hyper-conservatives of that era were apparently more articulate than those of today, because today's signs are far more vague:


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg
Now we can't assume too much about their tax behaviors but since most of the tea party is roughly middle to upper middle class it's safe to assume most of them are indeed tax payers. Now they seem to be protesting against socialism, (funny, you would've thought these would have ended when the cold war did...) and/or Obama who is apparently redder than Stalin. Okay so a picture of Obama, socialism NOT IN MY COUNTRY.

It seems to me that socialism/communism/marxism is used as a general boogy-man throughout the ages for the young and old fixed in their ideological convictions against attempts at positive progressive change.

The sad part is that it actually works. hah.

Rockntractor
10-01-2010, 01:38 PM
more like

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png
Racist and Likely Democrats protest against desegregation, on the ground that it is rooted in communism.

The signs say it clear as day. Hyper-conservatives of that era were apparently more articulate than those of today, because today's signs are far more vague:


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg
Now we can't assume too much about their tax behaviors but since most of the tea party is roughly middle to upper middle class it's safe to assume most of them are indeed tax payers. Now they seem to be protesting against socialism, (funny, you would've thought these would have ended when the cold war did...) and/or Obama who is apparently redder than Stalin. Okay so a picture of Obama, socialism NOT IN MY COUNTRY.

It seems to me that socialism/communism/marxism is used as a general boogy-man throughout the ages for the young and old fixed in their ideological convictions against attempts at positive progressive change.

The sad part is that it actually works. hah.

Does anybody get the feeling that nothing ever soaks in with this guy? How many times has he had the Tea Party explained to him, this gets old, he keeps throwing the same questions at us and ignores the answers given him.

Apache
10-01-2010, 01:55 PM
It seems to me that socialism/communism/marxism is used as a general boogy-man throughout the ages for the young and old fixed in their ideological convictions against attempts at positive progressive change.

The sad part is that it actually works. hah.

It walks, quacks, looks like a socialist/communist/marxist, it must be...:rolleyes:

Apache
10-01-2010, 01:57 PM
Does anybody get the feeling that nothing ever soaks in with this guy? How many times has he had the Tea Party explained to him, this gets old, he keeps throwing the same questions at us and ignores the answers given him.

It never will Rock. He's mainlined the kool-aid...

Rockntractor
10-01-2010, 02:05 PM
So do you think race mixing is communism?

Any more accusations of racism against conservatives had better be backed up by proof!

Apache
10-01-2010, 02:07 PM
So do you think race mixing is communism?

I think government stepping in too FORCE races too mix is communism.

Wei Wu Wei
10-01-2010, 02:17 PM
against conservatives

lacarnut
10-01-2010, 02:27 PM
Also this forever. Dude seriously, I'm a huge nerd even I was getting some every other day my first 2 years of college.

I did not know they had fag bath houses in Austin.

Apache
10-01-2010, 02:49 PM
against conservatives

lame. tired . worn out.

Odysseus
10-01-2010, 06:11 PM
more like
Racist and Likely Democrats protest against desegregation, on the ground that it is rooted in communism.
So, you're claiming that of the two parties, Republicans were pro-integration because they were pro-communist? That's a stretch, even for you. And Democrats were accomplished race baiters long before they cared a whit about communism. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was more than happy to segregate Washington DC and the federal civil service.


The signs say it clear as day. Hyper-conservatives of that era were apparently more articulate than those of today, because today's signs are far more vague:
Everyone was more articulate back then. The unions didn't own the public schools yet, and kids were taught English.

I hate to tell you this, Wei, but those southern Democrats weren't conservatives, they were progressives. The conservatives of the era fought for integration. It was Ike who federalized the National Guard in Little Rock and sent the 101st Airborne to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education and Goldwater who desegregated the Arizona National Guard. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that wiretapped Martin Luther King, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats, not Republicans. Don't let those facts get in the way of your opinion, though.


Now we can't assume too much about their tax behaviors but since most of the tea party is roughly middle to upper middle class it's safe to assume most of them are indeed tax payers. Now they seem to be protesting against socialism, (funny, you would've thought these would have ended when the cold war did...) and/or Obama who is apparently redder than Stalin. Okay so a picture of Obama, socialism NOT IN MY COUNTRY.
One would have thought that Socialism would have ended when the Cold War did, but some people never learn. And, whether you like it or not, Obama is a socialist.

And, yes, they are taxpayers. Why do you think that they're protesting? Ooops, I forgot, they must be racists, since they are opposing the socialist policies of a black president.


It seems to me that socialism/communism/marxism is used as a general boogy-man throughout the ages for the young and old fixed in their ideological convictions against attempts at positive progressive change.

The sad part is that it actually works. hah.
It works because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between "progressive change" and socialism/communism/marxism. Of course, if there is a difference, I'd love to hear what it is. Because you, yourself, admitted that socialism/communism/marxism have failed in every possible way. Allow me to remind you:


Let me say unequivocally, as many liberals have said, that the 20th century experiment of actual socialism was an absolute political ,economic, ethical, and social FAILURE!
Absolutely.
No one is talking about going back to the USSR or starting a new Leninist party.
Not anyone.
You're arguing against dead ideas and I agree that those policies failed and we should learn from those failures.

So, what lesson would you have us learn from that failure? And how would you apply those lessons to "progressive change"?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 06:47 PM
So, you're claiming that of the two parties, Republicans were pro-integration because they were pro-communist? That's a stretch, even for you. And Democrats were accomplished race baiters long before they cared a whit about communism. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was more than happy to segregate Washington DC and the federal civil service.


Everyone was more articulate back then. The unions didn't own the public schools yet, and kids were taught English.

I hate to tell you this, Wei, but those southern Democrats weren't conservatives, they were progressives. The conservatives of the era fought for integration. It was Ike who federalized the National Guard in Little Rock and sent the 101st Airborne to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education and Goldwater who desegregated the Arizona National Guard. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that wiretapped Martin Luther King, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats, not Republicans. Don't let those facts get in the way of your opinion, though.


One would have thought that Socialism would have ended when the Cold War did, but some people never learn. And, whether you like it or not, Obama is a socialist.

And, yes, they are taxpayers. Why do you think that they're protesting? Ooops, I forgot, they must be racists, since they are opposing the socialist policies of a black president.


It works because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between "progressive change" and socialism/communism/marxism. Of course, if there is a difference, I'd love to hear what it is. Because you, yourself, admitted that socialism/communism/marxism have failed in every possible way. Allow me to remind you:



So, what lesson would you have us learn from that failure? And how would you apply those lessons to "progressive change"?

Just one comment:
Ike wasn't exactly a conservative. He was if anything a moderate who tried to be as non-ideological as possible.
And I agree with Kennedy and Johnson wiretapping King. From their POV at the time, he did indeed seem like a subversive, and there is evidence he had communist leanings. Back then it was rather dangerous for a major political or social leader to be a communist sympathizer since we were in the middle of an ideological war with Communism. And King was a plagiarizer and indeed was communist leading; He wasn't this utterly original or great guy and he helped undermine the war effort in Vietnam toward the end of his life. He was getting more and more radical in his speeches as he went on.
I think had he lived, to be honest, he'd be right along with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. I mean Jesse was a friend of his and they were together when he died.

Wei Wu Wei
10-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Just one comment:
Ike wasn't exactly a conservative. He was if anything a moderate who tried to be as non-ideological as possible.
And I agree with Kennedy and Johnson wiretapping King. From their POV at the time, he did indeed seem like a subversive, and there is evidence he had communist leanings. Back then it was rather dangerous for a major political or social leader to be a communist sympathizer since we were in the middle of an ideological war with Communism. And King was a plagiarizer and indeed was communist leading; He wasn't this utterly original or great guy and he helped undermine the war effort in Vietnam toward the end of his life. He was getting more and more radical in his speeches as he went on.
I think had he lived, to be honest, he'd be right along with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. I mean Jesse was a friend of his and they were together when he died.

Neat Martin Luther King jr was a bad guy (and mediocre at that).


hahaha communism

COMMUNISM AND RACISM






"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry.... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism".

Martin Luther King Jr.
Frogmore, S.C. November 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png

Odysseus
10-01-2010, 07:07 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/2ppey6d.png

Haven't you posted that Democratic Party reunion photo enough?

BTW, I like the nicely printed signs. They're just as spontaneous as the ones at an SEIU event. :D

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 07:20 PM
A very famous Republican stood with Dr King in 1963

What was his name again?

Oh yes

This guy

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kJ9Qvu1Zn-M/S1QqUWMa2jI/AAAAAAAAAnE/UcbtAznBBQk/s400/08MOWcelebs.jpg

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 07:24 PM
Part of the list of Democrats who fought the Civil Rights Bill

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

and this

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 07:26 PM
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act) of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

Court records show that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks as property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.

President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacred.

History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._King) as " that ****** preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.

Source (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006_05_21_archive.html)

Wei Wu Wei
10-01-2010, 07:50 PM
What's all this flag waving about democrats vs republicans. Does anyone here take the party team playing seriously? Of course the democrats were against the civil rights movement we're all very well aware of the history of the 2 parties and how they've evolved

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 07:50 PM
So, you're claiming that of the two parties, Republicans were pro-integration because they were pro-communist? That's a stretch, even for you. And Democrats were accomplished race baiters long before they cared a whit about communism. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was more than happy to segregate Washington DC and the federal civil service.


Everyone was more articulate back then. The unions didn't own the public schools yet, and kids were taught English.

I hate to tell you this, Wei, but those southern Democrats weren't conservatives, they were progressives. The conservatives of the era fought for integration. It was Ike who federalized the National Guard in Little Rock and sent the 101st Airborne to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education and Goldwater who desegregated the Arizona National Guard. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that wiretapped Martin Luther King, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats, not Republicans. Don't let those facts get in the way of your opinion, though.


One would have thought that Socialism would have ended when the Cold War did, but some people never learn. And, whether you like it or not, Obama is a socialist.

And, yes, they are taxpayers. Why do you think that they're protesting? Ooops, I forgot, they must be racists, since they are opposing the socialist policies of a black president.


It works because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between "progressive change" and socialism/communism/marxism. Of course, if there is a difference, I'd love to hear what it is. Because you, yourself, admitted that socialism/communism/marxism have failed in every possible way. Allow me to remind you:



So, what lesson would you have us learn from that failure? And how would you apply those lessons to "progressive change"?


Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act) of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

Court records show that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks as property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.

President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacred.

History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._King) as " that ****** preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.

Source (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006_05_21_archive.html)

I don't really like President Clinton in retrospect. As to the Civil Rights issue, yes, Democratic reps and people were guilty of that back then, but it's the past.
I don't have any problem with the tapping of King given his communist leaning ways, nor Johnson calling him a "******"--He was a Texan born in 1908 and that word wasn't as bad a word in his time and place. You can say that word without lynching black people or burning crosses.

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 07:58 PM
I don't have any problem with the tapping of King given his communist leaning ways, nor Johnson calling him a "******"--He was a Texan born in 1908 and that word wasn't as bad a word in his time and place.

So you have zero problems with warrantless, illegal wiretaps. How interesting. So you have no problem with Pres' Bush's LEGAL use if wiretaps under FISA then?


You can say that word without lynching black people or burning crosses.

Democrats founded the KKK
Democrats wanted King silenced.
Republicans stood with Dr King.
A Democrat was the one who turned the dogs onto Dr King in Alabama.(Wallace)

"Thats in the past"?

"Those who forget history are doomed to relive it" - Santayana.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 08:04 PM
So you have zero problems with warrantless, illegal wiretaps. How interesting. So you have no problem with Pres' Bush's LEGAL use if wiretaps under FISA then?



Democrats founded the KKK
Democrats wanted King silenced.
Republicans stood with Dr King.
A Democrat was the one who turned the dogs onto Dr King in Alabama.(Wallace)

"Thats in the past"?

"Those who forget history are doomed to relive it" - Santayana.

I never had a problem with Bush's wiretaps.
Yeah, Democrats founded the KKK- In the early 1870s. The Democratic Party of the 1870s wasn't the same as the party in the 1960s or today.
He was a communist leaning plagiarizer who kept company with guys like Jesse Jackson. His image is made too saintly because he was killed. He's become one of those untouchable figures like JFK, where you shouldn't bash them because they're essentially American martyrs.
I don't agree with Wallace doing so.

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 08:12 PM
His image is made too saintly because he was killed.

Like it or not,. Martin Luther King dragged the US, kicking and screaming, into the 20th Century. Bottom line.

Rockntractor
10-01-2010, 08:15 PM
No man should ever be idolized too much.

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 08:19 PM
No man should ever be idolized too much.

*sigh*

Perhaps, Rock, but in all truth, his death was idiotic.And ultimately self defeating. Bullets cannot stop ideas, and Ray should have realised that.:(

Ray turned King into a a martyr.

Martyrs can never be silenced.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 08:21 PM
*sigh*

Perhaps, Rock, but in all truth, his death was idiotic.And ultimately self defeating. Bullets cannot stop ideas, and Ray should have realised that.:(

Ray turned King into a a martyr.

Martyrs can never be silenced.

Yeah.
Look at JFK. He didn't do all that much as President, and nearly got us all killed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he got killed and now he's some kind of American saint. I've literally seen both conservatives and liberals try to claim him as their own, when in reality he was just an average president. But because he got killed prematurely, the dreams of what could've been overwhelmed the truth of what was.

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 08:37 PM
Yeah.
Look at JFK. He didn't do all that much as President, and nearly got us all killed in the Cuban Missile Crisis

*takes deep breath and controls his temper*

CITM

The US WERE NOT THE ONES WHO PLACED BALLISTIC NUCLEAR MISSILES INTO CUBA!!! :mad:

If anyone is responsible for that crisis, it was the man who put them there in the first place.

Kruschev and Castro.


, but he got killed and now he's some kind of American saint. I've literally seen both conservatives and liberals try to claim him as their own, when in reality he was just an average president. But because he got killed prematurely, the dreams of what could've been overwhelmed the truth of what was.

We will discuss the horror of Presidential assassination another day..wait...actually we wont, seeing as it's a topic the staff would rather not see here, with VERY good reason (and I am in full agreement with them on this).
'
We will never know what could have been, and life is full of what if's...but if you are going to lay the blame for that horrific incident, lay it at the feet of the maniac who thought he could hold a loaded gun to the head of the US and get away with it,

GODDAMMIT, CITM, you know better than this.

Or you should.:eek:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 09:10 PM
*takes deep breath and controls his temper*

CITM

The US WERE NOT THE ONES WHO PLACED BALLISTIC NUCLEAR MISSILES INTO CUBA!!! :mad:

If anyone is responsible for that crisis, it was the man who put them there in the first place.

Kruschev and Castro.



We will discuss the horror of Presidential assassination another day..wait...actually we wont, seeing as it's a topic the staff would rather not see here, with VERY good reason (and I am in full agreement with them on this).
'
We will never know what could have been, and life is full of what if's...but if you are going to lay the blame for that horrific incident, lay it at the feet of the maniac who thought he could hold a loaded gun to the head of the US and get away with it,

GODDAMMIT, CITM, you know better than this.

Or you should.:eek:

The thing is, after the meeting with Vienna in I believe April '61, Khruschev saw Kennedy as a young, inexperienced, in over his head guy who he could get over on. The botching of the Bay of Pigs invasion reinfoced this (Only half his fault since it was mostly planned before he took office) and also helped to reinforce Castro's already existing hate and fear of us. Cuba and the USSR figured Kennedy was weak and they could get over on him (and the US in turn) without anything happening.
In the end, Kennedy acted very good during the Missile Crisis, but his foibles early in his Presidency led to the USSR thinking they could put missiles in Cuba.
Like I said, he wasn't a bad president, or horrible president--Just average.

And yeah, his assasination was no one's fault but Lee Harvey Oswald's--I am in full agreement, and it was a national tragedy. That I do not doubt or disagree with AT ALL.

I just feel in America when guys like Lincoln, JFK, Bobby, MLK are killed violently and prematurely we tend to gloss over their faults or mistakes and create this false almost saintly image of them. And it's wrong, because it gives an inaccurate picture--No person is wholly good, or wholly bad.

Sonnabend
10-01-2010, 09:27 PM
In the end, Kennedy acted very good during the Missile Crisis, but his foibles early in his Presidency led to the USSR thinking they could put missiles in Cuba.

Yet you said this


Look at JFK. He didn't do all that much as President, and nearly got us all killed in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Explain this discrepancy please.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-01-2010, 09:59 PM
Yet you said this



Explain this discrepancy please.


It was JFK's errors which led to the Missile Crisis. Had he not acted so amateurish in 1961, the Missile Crisis may not have happened. He didn't intentionally fuck up early in his presidency, but he did nonetheless and it had an effect. At the same time, I can say that his leadership DURING the Crisis--the fact that in the end there WASN'T WWIII, is commendable.
But still, at the same time his policies in the first year which led to it happening in the first place lower my opinin of him a little.

Like I said, he was just average as President. Not bad, not great.

Sonnabend
10-02-2010, 06:35 AM
It was JFK's errors which led to the Missile Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Crisis). Had he not acted so amateurish in 1961, the Missile Crisis may not have happenedYou are selling him short, not to mention that you have overlooked the fact that Kruschev was a hardliner and planned this for a long time. Neither JFK nor anyone else could have known that he would make this decision, and the ramifications are still being felt today.

The Cold War was escalating almost out of control. We know that up until recently, the Beria axis had held control, SMERSH was finally brought under some semblance of control, and at the time Nikita was busy shoring up his own base. The cadre under Stalin remained very much in force, and even reluctant as he was, Kruschev was well aware of what this would create...it was a massive push against the US, and a brinksmanship play to force Kennedy's hand.

His alliance with Castro was tenuous at the start, and it was necessary for him to make this play, both to again shore up Cuba, and to prevent another Bay of Pigs. Kennedy was elected in 1960, and the idea to put the missiles in Cuba was barely a year or so after he became President.

He inherited a dynamic, volatile situation. Kruschev well prepared to hold the gun against Kennedy's head, believing as he did that this would force the US to back down.

And miscalculated badly.

Kennedy was not responsible for the Crisis, and did what he could to counter Kruschev's bald statement "we will bury you". The USSR and the Praesidium were hell bent on conquest..and declassified documents now show that his intent was to force not only a US backdown, but to increase the USSR's military supremacy.

At the same time,. it is known that he had planned , or was prepared, to send forces through the Fulda Gap and start a fullscale conventional war, backed up with the knowledge that they would have already forced the US to capitulate.

Kennedy stood firm..Kruschev backed down, and the crisis ended. It was one battle in a long Cold War..one that could not have been prevented, but in its own stead, created the beginnings of talks on detente..which eventually evolved into the SALT talks.

Two nations stood on the brink, one bent on humiliating its opponent on the world stage as a prelude to further war..the other standing in the middle of a potential firestorm, arms folded.

You misjudge Kennedy greatly.

Bailey
10-02-2010, 07:47 AM
You are selling him short, not to mention that you have overlooked the fact that Kruschev was a hardliner and planned this for a long time. Neither JFK nor anyone else could have known that he would make this decision, and the ramifications are still being felt today.

The Cold War was escalating almost out of control. We know that up until recently, the Beria axis had held control, SMERSH was finally brought under some semblance of control, and at the time Nikita was busy shoring up his own base. The cadre under Stalin remained very much in force, and even reluctant as he was, Kruschev was well aware of what this would create...it was a massive push against the US, and a brinksmanship play to force Kennedy's hand.

His alliance with Castro was tenuous at the start, and it was necessary for him to make this play, both to again shore up Cuba, and to prevent another Bay of Pigs. Kennedy was elected in 1960, and the idea to put the missiles in Cuba was barely a year or so after he became President.

He inherited a dynamic, volatile situation. Kruschev well prepared to hold the gun against Kennedy's head, believing as he did that this would force the US to back down.

And miscalculated badly.

Kennedy was not responsible for the Crisis, and did what he could to counter Kruschev's bald statement "we will bury you". The USSR and the Praesidium were hell bent on conquest..and declassified documents now show that his intent was to force not only a US backdown, but to increase the USSR's military supremacy.

At the same time,. it is known that he had planned , or was prepared, to send forces through the Fulda Gap and start a fullscale conventional war, backed up with the knowledge that they would have already forced the US to capitulate.

Kennedy stood firm..Kruschev backed down, and the crisis ended. It was one battle in a long Cold War..one that could not have been prevented, but in its own stead, created the beginnings of talks on detente..which eventually evolved into the SALT talks.

Two nations stood on the brink, one bent on humiliating its opponent on the world stage as a prelude to further war..the other standing in the middle of a potential firestorm, arms folded.

You misjudge Kennedy greatly.

Oh bullshit Not only did kennedys ineptness lead us into the crisis it also gave kruschev a victory by not only pledging not to invade Cuba we also removed missiles from Turkey.

Kenndy was played pure and simple.

Sonnabend
10-02-2010, 08:15 AM
Oh bullshit Not only did kennedys ineptness lead us into the crisis it also gave kruschev a victory by not only pledging not to invade Cuba we also removed missiles from Turkey.

Kennedy was played pure and simple.

His "victory" was shortlived, as he was deposed less than two years later. Brezhnev took his place...and the slow but inevitable decline of the USSR began. Strangely enough, Bailey, he was deposed because his opponents said HE backed down over the missile crisis.

As a gambit, in the long run, it failed miserably.

Bailey
10-02-2010, 08:23 AM
His "victory" was shortlived, as he was deposed less than two years later. Brezhnev took his place...and the slow but inevitable decline of the USSR began. Strangely enough, Bailey, he was deposed because his opponents said HE backed down over the missile crisis.

As a gambit, in the long run, it failed miserably.


Well the USSR was doomed to failure the moment it was founded if truth be told, so thats not saying much.

Thats the old USSR for you, you get punished for doing something right. They don't tolerate success very well. :D

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-02-2010, 08:32 AM
Well the USSR was doomed to failure the moment it was founded if truth be told, so thats not saying much.

Thats the old USSR for you, you get punished for doing something right. They don't tolerate success very well. :D

The USSR was actually doing really well in the '60s. If I remember right they were approaching our level of GDP at the time.
He's right in that it's about when Brezhnev took over that the slow decline started. Brezhnev did a good job at hastening the USSR's eventual decline and his successors did about the same.

Bailey
10-02-2010, 08:35 AM
The USSR was actually doing really well in the '60s. If I remember right they were approaching our level of GDP at the time.
He's right in that it's about when Brezhnev took over that the slow decline started. Brezhnev did a good job at hastening the USSR's eventual decline and his successors did about the same.


Proof on that GDP thing"? from what I understand of the USSR they were never a economic superpower just a military one.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-02-2010, 08:42 AM
Well the USSR was doomed to failure the moment it was founded if truth be told, so thats not saying much.

Thats the old USSR for you, you get punished for doing something right. They don't tolerate success very well. :D


Proof on that GDP thing"? from what I understand of the USSR they were never a economic superpower just a military one.

Taken from wiki, doon't know how accurate it is:
'' By 1970, the Soviet economy had reached its zenith and was estimated at about 60 per cent of the size of the USA[citation needed] in terms of the estimated commodities (like steel and coal). In 1989, the GDP of the Soviet Union was $2,500 Billion[23] while the GDP of the United States was $4,862 Billion[24] with per capita income figures as $8,700 and $19,800 respectively.''

Like I said, don't know how accurate that is.

BadCat
10-02-2010, 09:05 AM
Kennedy was, as all Dimocrats have been and will be, an utter disgrace to this country.

Bailey
10-02-2010, 09:46 AM
Taken from wiki, doon't know how accurate it is:
'' By 1970, the Soviet economy had reached its zenith and was estimated at about 60 per cent of the size of the USA[citation needed] in terms of the estimated commodities (like steel and coal). In 1989, the GDP of the Soviet Union was $2,500 Billion[23] while the GDP of the United States was $4,862 Billion[24] with per capita income figures as $8,700 and $19,800 respectively.''

Like I said, don't know how accurate that is.

Lets say it is accurate, thats not quite approaching the USA lol

Bailey
10-02-2010, 09:50 AM
Kennedy was, as all Dimocrats have been and will be, an utter disgrace to this country.

I wasn't alive during his short term (thank God it was short) but for the life of me I cant see one thing he did well? maybe some people i.e. lindanumbers can enlighten me on something positive he accomplished?
besides nailing Marilin Monroe? (sp)? and taking really cool pictures in the oval office?

BadCat
10-02-2010, 10:03 AM
I wasn't alive during his short term (thank God it was short) but for the life of me I cant see one thing he did well? maybe some people i.e. lindanumbers can enlighten me on something positive he accomplished?
besides nailing Marilin Monroe? (sp)? and taking really cool pictures in the oval office?

I'll give him credit for nailing Marilyn, but that sharing her with his brother stuff is pretty kinky.

Bailey
10-02-2010, 10:06 AM
I'll give him credit for nailing Marilyn, but that sharing her with his brother stuff is pretty kinky.

ewwww, i wouldnt share with my bro unless I went first ;):D

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-02-2010, 10:17 AM
ewwww, i wouldnt share with my bro unless I went first ;):D


He did go first. Bobby got the sloppy seconds.

Sonnabend
10-02-2010, 10:52 AM
He did go first. Bobby got the sloppy seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloppy_Seconds).

CITM

It is almost midnight here, and I have to go to bed soon.

Thank you SO MUCH for that wonderful mental image.:eek::mad:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oNY1cZpayNfGKM:http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/Decorated%20images/MotivatorBrainBleach2.jpg&t=1p







Note to self: add CITM to "the list":D

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-02-2010, 10:56 AM
CITM

It is almost midnight here, and I have to go to bed soon.

Thank you SO MUCH for that wonderful mental image.:eek::mad:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oNY1cZpayNfGKM:http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/Decorated%20images/MotivatorBrainBleach2.jpg&t=1p

Note to self: add CITM to "the list":D


The list?