Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The whitewashing of Martin Luther King
Comments
-
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists -
MikeDamone said:
You’re disgustingTheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
You want REAL socialism and we just need the right guys in there. It’s really never been tried…..Meanwhile we have 100 million + dead and lives destroyed. North Korea just has the wrong leader. Go to any former eastern block country and chat with people in the 40s and up who lived through that shit and report back. I’ve been there and know many people who live there and are from there. They would all call you a moron at best, dangerous at worst.MikeDamone said:
You’re disgustingTheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
You want REAL socialism and we just need the right guys in there. It’s really never been tried…..Meanwhile we have 100 million + dead and lives destroyed. North Korea just has the wrong leader. Go to any former eastern block country and chat with people in the 40s and up who lived through that shit and report back. I’ve been there and know many people who live there and are from there. They would all call you a moron at best, dangerous at worst.
200+ million dead from evils of communism and socialism in just the 20th centuryMikeDamone said:
You’re disgustingTheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
You want REAL socialism and we just need the right guys in there. It’s really never been tried…..Meanwhile we have 100 million + dead and lives destroyed. North Korea just has the wrong leader. Go to any former eastern block country and chat with people in the 40s and up who lived through that shit and report back. I’ve been there and know many people who live there and are from there. They would all call you a moron at best, dangerous at worst. -
Oh you wanted me to add to the 200+ million by including the 18th and 19th centuries? You’re terrible at this.TheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros? -
I'll give MLK pass since he was a relatively young man who said that in the 60s when the abject failure of Socialism wasn't readily apparent like it became later. You have no excuse Kobe, the failure of Socialism is all very apparent and you just ignore it, hell you're so fucking deluded you're still promoting the wonders of Communism.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”. -
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
-
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists -
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
-
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism -
Pol Pot had roughly 2M fellow Cambodians murdered in an attempt to achieve his socialist Xanadu. But Kobe’s socialism will do it right.
59% of DIMS want the unvaxxed detained in their homes. These lunatics would be Kobe’s socialist homies. -
The cut and paste Kunt strikes again!!!!TheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism -
No one knows how many Indians were here. 100 million is pure bullshit. Ken Burns did some research on it years ago and came up with a 3-4 million estimate for the USA total.SFGbob said:
The cut and paste Kunt strikes again!!!!TheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
Anyone who knows anything about American Indian history knows that they were a ruthless group. Cannibalism, rape, slaughter, horrible torture, forced starvation, whole tribe extermination, ethnic cleansing, slavery. They were brutal people.
I always crack up when liberals try to use the plight of American Indians as some sort of blame game that cleanses their own souls just for uttering the atrocities. I always ask them why they live here if 500 year old history bothers them so much. Move to a place that has no such history. The reality is there is no place on earth without such history. In the same breath they espouse socialism which is much more recent and violent than any other type of government or group of people. The people who are socialist are clearly the most violent in modern history. But hey, lets give it another shot right?
-
To be fair not all tribes were as you portray them. Plenty of relatively peaceful agrarian tribes. But on balance you are correct. The historical record shows that my people were a pretty martial lot. Heavy into fighting and fucking. Not unlike, oh, pretty much every other early world society. Gauls. Vikings. Rus. 1st Nation. African. Greasy Slavs. Shogun Yellows. If you go back 500 years it was pretty much all warfare all the time everywhere in the world. "Rape, murder and pillage" was sport and hobby all over the world.Bendintheriver said:
No one knows how many Indians were here. 100 million is pure bullshit. Ken Burns did some research on it years ago and came up with a 3-4 million estimate for the USA total.SFGbob said:
The cut and paste Kunt strikes again!!!!TheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
Anyone who knows anything about American Indian history knows that they were a ruthless group. Cannibalism, rape, slaughter, horrible torture, forced starvation, whole tribe extermination, ethnic cleansing, slavery. They were brutal people.
I always crack up when liberals try to use the plight of American Indians as some sort of blame game that cleanses their own souls just for uttering the atrocities. I always ask them why they live here if 500 year old history bothers them so much. Move to a place that has no such history. The reality is there is no place on earth without such history. In the same breath they espouse socialism which is much more recent and violent than any other type of government or group of people. The people who are socialist are clearly the most violent in modern history. But hey, lets give it another shot right? -
Yeah but stillTheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The numbers on your commie pals add up -
They certainly killed a lot of people, even if 100 million is bullshit. That’s one reason why my chosen ideology looks nothing like theirs. In name only.RaceBannon said:
Yeah but stillTheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The numbers on your commie pals add up -
Just Mao's great leap forward was around 50 million. No one really know how many Stalin knocked off but he starved some 8 million to death in the Ukraine not to mention all the gulags, purges, firing squads and disappearances. Hitler was 6 million+. No wonder you believe this shit, you can not think for yourself. Move to Cuba bitch or make sure you wear bright orange when you're on the other side so I can spot you more easily.TheKobeStopper said:
They certainly killed a lot of people, even if 100 million is bullshit. That’s one reason why my chosen ideology looks nothing like theirs. In name only.RaceBannon said:
Yeah but stillTheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The numbers on your commie pals add up -
It's the sameTheKobeStopper said:
They certainly killed a lot of people, even if 100 million is bullshit. That’s one reason why my chosen ideology looks nothing like theirs. In name only.RaceBannon said:
Yeah but stillTheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The numbers on your commie pals add up
The road always leads to the same dead end -
Mostly peaceful natives.
-
They sold each other outMikeDamone said:Mostly peaceful natives.
-
Sounds exactly like what happens in communism.TheKobeStopper said:
So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classesPitchfork51 said:Mlk was overrated and would be hated by the left as an uncle Tom
I think he’d do alright.
Meanwhile in the USA the common person has multiple cars, all the food one can eat, store full of goods (that is until Biden got his guys in there), devices in every pocket more powerful than supercomputers 40 years ago with. Instant access to vast sources of information, hundreds of entertainment options in every household…etc..
But yeah, capitalism has taken away necessities from the masses. My guess is MLK would have evolved in the issue. Much like he might have in gay marriage, like Obama did he read the tea leaves and deciding to support gay marriage was political shrewd for his 2012 campaign. -
Kobe wants worker coops that are capitalized by some unknown method. You just want to steal labor.MikeDamone said:
Sounds exactly like what happens in communism.TheKobeStopper said:
So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classesPitchfork51 said:Mlk was overrated and would be hated by the left as an uncle Tom
I think he’d do alright.
Meanwhile in the USA the common person has multiple cars, all the food one can eat, store full of goods (that is until Biden got his guys in there), devices in every pocket more powerful than supercomputers 40 years ago with. Instant access to vast sources of information, hundreds of entertainment options in every household…etc..
But yeah, capitalism has taken away necessities from the masses. My guess is MLK would have evolved in the issue. Much like he might have in gay marriage, like Obama did he read the tea leaves and deciding to support gay marriage was political shrewd for his 2012 campaign. -
CASES!!!TheKobeStopper said:
They certainly killed a lot of people, even if 100 million is bullshit. That’s one reason why my chosen ideology looks nothing like theirs. In name only.RaceBannon said:
Yeah but stillTheKobeStopper said:
Agree.RaceBannon said:
100 million is also bullshitSFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists
Moreover, three of the book's main contributors (Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Nicolas Werth)[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[35] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[38] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries,[6][39]: 194 [40]: 123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3][note 2] Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro called the book "a 1997 propaganda volume", whereas he described the total of 100 million killed as a "simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The numbers on your commie pals add up
You fucking idiot - grow the fuck up and learn the difference between conquest, communicable disease and outright political genocide.
-
The Havanna commie bros have cars.MikeDamone said:
Sounds exactly like what happens in communism.TheKobeStopper said:
So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classesPitchfork51 said:Mlk was overrated and would be hated by the left as an uncle Tom
I think he’d do alright.
Meanwhile in the USA the common person has multiple cars, all the food one can eat, store full of goods (that is until Biden got his guys in there), devices in every pocket more powerful than supercomputers 40 years ago with. Instant access to vast sources of information, hundreds of entertainment options in every household…etc..
But yeah, capitalism has taken away necessities from the masses. My guess is MLK would have evolved in the issue. Much like he might have in gay marriage, like Obama did he read the tea leaves and deciding to support gay marriage was political shrewd for his 2012 campaign.
They are all just 1956 Chevys.
-
That’s because mean capitalists won’t trade with them. It goes back to white supremacy. If not for that they would be crushing it. They probably would have improved on the YUGO by now.PurpleThrobber said:
The Havanna commie bros have cars.MikeDamone said:
Sounds exactly like what happens in communism.TheKobeStopper said:
So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classesPitchfork51 said:Mlk was overrated and would be hated by the left as an uncle Tom
I think he’d do alright.
Meanwhile in the USA the common person has multiple cars, all the food one can eat, store full of goods (that is until Biden got his guys in there), devices in every pocket more powerful than supercomputers 40 years ago with. Instant access to vast sources of information, hundreds of entertainment options in every household…etc..
But yeah, capitalism has taken away necessities from the masses. My guess is MLK would have evolved in the issue. Much like he might have in gay marriage, like Obama did he read the tea leaves and deciding to support gay marriage was political shrewd for his 2012 campaign.
They are all just 1956 Chevys. -
The slobberer just blindly repeats commie talking points. He is never able to point to the real world and give us an example of the economic success of any communist or hard socialist country. He is never to tell us what necessity a non-crazy non-drug addicted person in the US is lacking. His assumption is that just by having to work, some necessity is being stolen. Being "poor" in the US means a flat screen TV, a car, air conditioning and cell phone. Two people working $15 an hour jobs (they are literally everywhere - like the local car wash or McDonald's) would make $60,000 a year.SFGbob said:
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”. -
So, the slobberer's argument is that killing more than 100 million people is fine as long as they not indigenous people? So, the Nazi's get a pass? Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.SFGbob said:
The overwhelming majority of these people who were "killed" died from their lack of immunity to viruses that Europeans carried. They weren't intentionally murdered. Btw, if anyone claims China is now responsible for the "murder" of a million Americans I'll guarantee you that Kobe will call that person a racist.RaceBannon said:
Ask the Royalist scum that did itTheKobeStopper said:
Is killing 100 million people bad, bros?
Who became today's socialists -
I’ve addressed this multiple times.WestlinnDuck said:
The slobberer just blindly repeats commie talking points. He is never able to point to the real world and give us an example of the economic success of any communist or hard socialist country. He is never to tell us what necessity a non-crazy non-drug addicted person in the US is lacking. His assumption is that just by having to work, some necessity is being stolen. Being "poor" in the US means a flat screen TV, a car, air conditioning and cell phone. Two people working $15 an hour jobs (they are literally everywhere - like the local car wash or McDonald's) would make $60,000 a year.SFGbob said:
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
I will always enjoy how you guys switch between pretending to care about the middle class hurting and then socialism comes up and magically everything is fine no one is struggling. It’s almost like you just say shit for show and don’t believe any of it. -
This is literally garbage with no connection to realityTheKobeStopper said:
I’ve addressed this multiple times.WestlinnDuck said:
The slobberer just blindly repeats commie talking points. He is never able to point to the real world and give us an example of the economic success of any communist or hard socialist country. He is never to tell us what necessity a non-crazy non-drug addicted person in the US is lacking. His assumption is that just by having to work, some necessity is being stolen. Being "poor" in the US means a flat screen TV, a car, air conditioning and cell phone. Two people working $15 an hour jobs (they are literally everywhere - like the local car wash or McDonald's) would make $60,000 a year.SFGbob said:
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
I will always enjoy how you guys switch between pretending to care about the middle class hurting and then socialism comes up and magically everything is fine no one is struggling. It’s almost like you just say shit for show and don’t believe any of it.
Congrats -
You buy that strawman dinner before the ass phucking started? In February 2020 we had record low unemployment for all racial groups. We had record growth in working class wages. People struggle all the time. People die. You want to outlaw dying? But if you struggled in the US in February 2020, you didn't need to struggle long before you had all the necessities. You know who is really struggling? Every communist country or hard socialist country. Socialism comes up because you are telling us that the solution to the struggles is an open border and communism. Go figure. Geezus you are dumber than a bag of hammers.TheKobeStopper said:
I’ve addressed this multiple times.WestlinnDuck said:
The slobberer just blindly repeats commie talking points. He is never able to point to the real world and give us an example of the economic success of any communist or hard socialist country. He is never to tell us what necessity a non-crazy non-drug addicted person in the US is lacking. His assumption is that just by having to work, some necessity is being stolen. Being "poor" in the US means a flat screen TV, a car, air conditioning and cell phone. Two people working $15 an hour jobs (they are literally everywhere - like the local car wash or McDonald's) would make $60,000 a year.SFGbob said:
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
I will always enjoy how you guys switch between pretending to care about the middle class hurting and then socialism comes up and magically everything is fine no one is struggling. It’s almost like you just say shit for show and don’t believe any of it.
Of course, South Korea being white and North Korea being asian could explain this previously unexplainable economic difference. At least the North Koreans don't have to struggle and they are committed to freezing in the dark as their solution to global warming.
-
The middle class is fine.TheKobeStopper said:
I’ve addressed this multiple times.WestlinnDuck said:
The slobberer just blindly repeats commie talking points. He is never able to point to the real world and give us an example of the economic success of any communist or hard socialist country. He is never to tell us what necessity a non-crazy non-drug addicted person in the US is lacking. His assumption is that just by having to work, some necessity is being stolen. Being "poor" in the US means a flat screen TV, a car, air conditioning and cell phone. Two people working $15 an hour jobs (they are literally everywhere - like the local car wash or McDonald's) would make $60,000 a year.SFGbob said:
So you're too big a lightweight Kunt to tell us in your own words.TheKobeStopper said:
This is a complex issue and the problem for any right winger is while, yes, he denounced communism, he also called himself a socialist and called for the redistribution of wealth and nationalizing industry. Things that he would get called a communist for today.GrundleStiltzkin said:The man held a diverse set of opinions
My take is at the time (and still so for many today) you could not differentiate between communism and Soviet. That they meant the same thing. King draws a distinction between communism and socialism, that isn’t there, in order to say “not like that”.
I will always enjoy how you guys switch between pretending to care about the middle class hurting and then socialism comes up and magically everything is fine no one is struggling. It’s almost like you just say shit for show and don’t believe any of it.
There is no middle class under your plan of from each accordingly to his ability, to be such according to his needs.
The default position of humanity is poverty. Free markets are the only method to change that trajectory and it's worked significantly.
You sit there and reap the benefits this moment.
Regardless of what some professor who had never worked a day outside of a school has pipped into your mushy head. -
