Sikh temple gunman was ex-soldier linked to racist group

Judged:

2

2

1

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
Hilariously hypocritical, given that idiots like you simply call anyone YOU disagree with a "Marxist" without having the slightest idea of what that means.
Progressives are not remotely like Marxists, asshat. Get a clue.

Judged:

2

2

1

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey clown !
I'm a history buff and have been one since I'm 10 years old.
I have two books for you to read by credible mainstream authors .
I'll give you 2 months to read them and we can then have a credible debate.
* Freedom From Fear by David Kennedy.
* The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales .
I'm currently reading " The President's Club " by Gibbs and Duffy.
Ask permission from your HANDLERS so you can advance your education of historic U.S. politics.
I stand by all the statements you refute.

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
"I'm a history buff and have been one since I'm 10 years old."
You have to admit he's bright for a 4th grader.

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's the best you can do ? I'll live with it.

X Obama Supporter wrote:

<quoted text>
You are really sick you know that? To take every sad sick twisted thing that happens in society and try to make it political points for Obama shows not only a lack of scrupples on your part but some serious desperation on your part for your candidate of choice.
SHould we look at the daily murders in Chicago and make it political? We all know those are not rightwingers killing each other everyday. Who do you suppose they support for president? Wow, Obama should really be ashamed.

californio wrote:

Marxist always say they are progressives,
Might point out the Modern European Social safety net was set up by otto Von Bismarck( a monarchist)
And he sold it under the old principal that the Good Noble had an obligation to oversee and take care of his peasants.

swedenforever wrote:

<quoted text>
and Crapitalism was a horrific market system that tore down a French Monarchy with the beheadings of a entire Royal Family that 'let them (the peasants) eat cake'
I'm a proud neo-marxist..this country has become a corporate oligarchy and you say K.Marx was wrong? when America has had surpluses the politicans (from both partys has bailed out their constituents) and let safety nets not keep up with demand

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey clown !
I'm a history buff and have been one since I'm 10 years old.
I have two books for you to read by credible mainstream authors .
I'll give you 2 months to read them and we can then have a credible debate.
* Freedom From Fear by David Kennedy.
* The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales .
I'm currently reading " The President's Club " by Gibbs and Duffy.
Ask permission from your HANDLERS so you can advance your education of historic U.S. politics.
I stand by all the statements you refute.

californio wrote:

Marxist always say they are progressives,
Might point out the Modern European Social safety net was set up by otto Von Bismarck( a monarchist)
And he sold it under the old principal that the Good Noble had an obligation to oversee and take care of his peasants.

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it you read intelligent books and yet know nothing about a subject as important as Marxism?
I stand by my statement. You're ignorant.

nutbagger wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey azz"O" , I listed books and you try to blow smoke up peoples arses.

californio wrote:

<quoted text>
Before the French Revolution, France had a Feudal, not a Free market Capitalistic system. The government picked winner and loser and granted Monopolies left and right. At the start the merchant Capitalist class fully supported the French Revolution

harvey wrote:

Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.

harvey wrote:

Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.

californio wrote:

<quoted text>
Before the French Revolution, France had a Feudal, not a Free market Capitalistic system. The government picked winner and loser and granted Monopolies left and right. At the start the merchant Capitalist class fully supported the French Revolution

harvey wrote:

Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
The link between Marxists and Neo-Neo Marxists and Progressives is explained in Amity Shlaes Forgotten Man
Read the book as I advised .
Here is recap.
In the mid '20 about 30-40 Elite Egghead Academia toured Russia and some met Stalin.A decade later many were in the FDR bureacracy.
The idea of the individual scarificing for the group good intrigued them.But also concerned them .
* Can the state make you work where they desire..form mandatory communes ?
* Can the state take your proerty and give in to the group ( high taxation)?
Does that just mean your real property or your bank account also ?
* Can the state shut down the churches ?
* Can the state ban the worship of religion ?
* Can the state besides confiscating property also brand you a criminal because you previously owned property ( kulaks ).
Hardly any of them became Communists as that was a mark againist them and meant Moscow/Russia was the boss.
They also started calling themselves Liberals a new definition from the old traditional definition of Liberal . Group rights ( new ) vs. individual rights( traditional).
So they slit into the following.
Communists ...few. Moscow controlled.
Marxists ...few. Didn't concede leadership to Moscow but listened.
Fellow Travelers....Neo- Marxists...many. Liked all but the blood shed some concerns over civil rights.
Those disaffected over civil rights...Liberals. Liked industry , financial and farm control but not keen on total individual sacrifice for the group good as it may cancel civil rights and may be selective bureaucratic revenge ( Chick-Fil-A).
To get rid of the name of " Fellow Travelers " or Neo-Marxists they started calling themselves Progressives by 1934-35.
The CPUSA also liked the name Progressives instead of " Fellow Travelers " and used it frequently to show no obvious connection via name.
Read the book and much of todays LEFTY political rhetoric is right out of the Fellow Travelers and Progessives 1930s politics.
Class-warfare . Siloing of groups to create voting bases by class , occupation , race and cast as underdogs or overseers.
Divide and conquer with selective allies is the game same as Rusia 1917.
Basic 2012 Dem political style.