Republicans

Re: Republicans

Postby Forty Two » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:41 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:Your claim regarding the United Packinghouse Workers Union is bullshit. If it were accurate you'd be able to cite a reputable source rather than resorting to the evasive tactic of calling it 'arguable.'


Noooo... what I said was that the point about the UPW not being a communist front organization was "arguable" and not "established." That's accurate, given the information you posted. I also did not allege that he was a communist. I alleged he was a socialist. He alleged that he was a socialist, too, by the way.

Herbert March was specifically sent by the Communist Party USA to participate in organizing the packinghouse workers. He was part of the UPW. The Communist Party USA was behind much of the organizing of those unions. When the UPW was accused of being too rife with communists, the union had to set up a Public Advisory Review Commission to help root out the problem.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Moving on, you called Sanders an 'organizer' for the American People's History Society, which you assert is 'a Marxist propaganda group.' Again, bullshit; the American People's History Society was a non-profit company started by Sanders and his neighbor Nancy Barnett. They made educational film strips and at least one short documentary film. The subject of the film was Eugene Debs, but that in itself doesn't make the American People's History Society 'a Marxist propaganda group.'


It doesn't make it "not" a Marxist propaganda group. Propaganda is biased or misleading information used to promote a political view. The APHS produced just that, which was designed to promote Marxist Socialism, in part as you noted by promoting a certain slant on "America's Greatest Socialist" Eugene Debs. The documentary provides no criticism or balance regarding Debs - it's love piece, and he even admires Debs' support for the Soviet revolution in Russia.

Yes, the APHS was a non-profit, which has no relevance to whether it was a propaganda producer. Bernie's description of it producing films and other materials "from an alternative point of view..." is illustrative, in that his "alternative point of view" was Socialist. His coup-de-gras was the Eugene Debs project, and Debs - the Marxist Socialist - was his hero. He presents a biased view, to advance his socialist ideas and he specifically sought to market the piece to schools so it could be shown to children, so they could see how great socialist Debs and socialism are.

Rolling Stone magazine, that bastion of conservatism, called him the “red mayor in the Green Mountains.” Red means Socialist and/or Marxist, at least.

Sanders, incidentally, descried capitalism repeatedly - famously, he criticized capitalism for providing too much in the way of product options for the consumer. We, he thinks, should not have multiple deodorants to choose from.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Republicans

Postby Forty Two » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm

Tero wrote:Trump tax plan too good for Trump and pals
That’s a big political problem for Republicans who want their plans to rewrite the tax code focused on helping the politically all-important middle class. They know voters take a dim view of cutting taxes on the rich, and want to fend off inevitable attacks from Democrats that the GOP’s tax plans amount to a giveaway to millionaires and billionaires.

Republicans have already rewritten their plans to avoid giving so much to the wealthy. They’ve dropped plans to cut taxes on capital gains, and they’re considering a to-be-determined higher tax bracket on the rich.
Politico


It doesn't matter what he does. He could advance a plan to give a tax cut to the bottom 50% of tax payers, and the Democrats would still say it's a tax cut for the rich.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Republicans

Postby pErvin » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:03 pm

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Your claim regarding the United Packinghouse Workers Union is bullshit. If it were accurate you'd be able to cite a reputable source rather than resorting to the evasive tactic of calling it 'arguable.'


Noooo... what I said was that the point about the UPW not being a communist front organization was "arguable" and not "established."


Neither was your point asserting the opposite. Physician, heal thyself!

Rolling Stone magazine, that bastion of conservatism, called him the “red mayor in the Green Mountains.” Red means Socialist and/or Marxist, at least.


WTF kind of logic is that?! :lol:

Sanders, incidentally, descried capitalism repeatedly - famously, he criticized capitalism for providing too much in the way of product options for the consumer. We, he thinks, should not have multiple deodorants to choose from.


Because this came from you, with your track record of misrepresentation, I'd like to see your source. Can you provide his quotes?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 38395
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Republicans

Postby Forty Two » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:30 pm





,

If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Republicans

Postby pErvin » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:43 pm

Didn't think so.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 38395
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Republicans

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:54 pm

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Your claim regarding the United Packinghouse Workers Union is bullshit. If it were accurate you'd be able to cite a reputable source rather than resorting to the evasive tactic of calling it 'arguable.'


Noooo... what I said was that the point about the UPW not being a communist front organization was "arguable" and not "established." That's accurate, given the information you posted. I also did not allege that he was a communist. I alleged he was a socialist. He alleged that he was a socialist, too, by the way.

Herbert March was specifically sent by the Communist Party USA to participate in organizing the packinghouse workers. He was part of the UPW. The Communist Party USA was behind much of the organizing of those unions. When the UPW was accused of being too rife with communists, the union had to set up a Public Advisory Review Commission to help root out the problem.


You can tap-dance all you like, your claim remains bullshit. The fact is that the UPWA was not a 'communist front' organization. A communist working at a meat-packing plant and helping workers build a union doesn't make the union a 'communist front.' The CIO expelled 11 unions in 1949-50 because of their communist affiliations; the UPWA was not one of them.

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Moving on, you called Sanders an 'organizer' for the American People's History Society, which you assert is 'a Marxist propaganda group.' Again, bullshit; the American People's History Society was a non-profit company started by Sanders and his neighbor Nancy Barnett. They made educational film strips and at least one short documentary film. The subject of the film was Eugene Debs, but that in itself doesn't make the American People's History Society 'a Marxist propaganda group.'


It doesn't make it "not" a Marxist propaganda group.


You made the accusation--the burden of proof is yours. You haven't provided any evidence to support the accusation.

Forty Two wrote:Propaganda is biased or misleading information used to promote a political view. The APHS produced just that, which was designed to promote Marxist Socialism . . .


Bald assertion is not evidence, Forty Two. Below are descriptions of six of the film strips produced by Sanders and Barnett. There is not the slightest indication that they contain "biased or misleading information used to promote a political view." If you have evidence to the contrary you would have presented it rather than merely making a baseless accusation.

The Battle of Bennington

The Battle of Bennington is considered by many historians to be the turning point of the Revolutionary War. Fought at North Hoosick, New York, a combined "citizens army" of men from New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont, under the leadership of General John Stark, successfully defeated a British expeditionary force which sought to capture the American suppy base at Bennington, Vermont. The fighting, much of it hand to hand, was extremely bitter and, at one point, the Americans were on the verge of defeat. Two months after the surprise American victory at Bennington, British General John Brugoyne surrendered his entire army to the Americans at Saratoga.

Great Statesmen from Vermont

The state of Vermont, founded as an independent Republic in 1777 and incorporated into the United States as the 17th state, has produced from its soil a number of outstanding political leaders. This filmstrip provides a brief biographical sketch of 5 of the most important:
Ira Allen (1751-1814)
Mathew Lyon (1750-1821)
Thomas Chittenden (1730-1797)
Justin Morrill (1810-1897)
Redfield Proctor (1831-1908)

The Vermont Flood of 1927

On the night of November 2, 1927, at about ten o'clock in the evening, it began to rain in Vermont. It rained all through that night and continued raining during the next day. Then, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of November 3, the rainfall greatly intensified and, for one hour, a torrential rain of unheard of volume fell upon the ground which was already filled to capacity. This one hour rainfall was the greatest burst of rain that anyone in Vermont had ever seen. This filmstrip describes the flood of 1927--and the damage and suffering wrought by the flood which was, in the words of Gov. John E. Weeks, "The greatest natural disater in the history of the state."

Thoreau of Concord, Mass.

Henry David Throreau, who was born and raised in Concord, Massachusetts and spent most of his life in that area, was one of the most independent and creative thinkers in American history.

In March of 1845 Thoreau borrowd an ax and on land given him by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson, began building a small cabin near Walden Pond--a cabin which ended up costing him $28, Out of his experiences and observations on Walden Pond Thoreau wrote Walden, one of the most important books in American literature. This filmstrip, often quoting directly from Walden, discusses Thoreau's views of the individual in society, nature and government.

Massachusetts and the Sea

This filmstrip discusses the role of the sea in Massachusetts life from the settlement of the colony until the late 19th century. The sea live of Massachusetts has made such towns as Gloucester, Salem, Marblehead, Boston, Yarmouth, New Bedford, and Nantucket famous throughout the world. From the shores of Massachusetts skilled workers have built ships and sent them to virtually every part of the world. By the end of the 17th century a prosperous trad existed between Massachusetts, the West Indies and Europe, and a hundred years later Massachusetts ships were trading as far away as China. In 1715 a new maritime industry was born--whaling. For the next 200 years Massachusetts whaling boats were chasing their prey from Australia to Greenland--and making such towns as Nantucket and New Bedford the center of the whaling industry.

Massachusetts and the Abolitionist Movement

This filmstrip deals with the key role that Massachusetts played in the abolition of slavery in this country. In 1700 Samuel Sewall published the first anti-slavery tract in what was to become the United States. In 1790 the Massachusetts Constitution became the first in the Union to abolish slavery. In the years prior to the Civil War, Massachusetts became the center of the anti-slavery fight. From the pages of the "Liberator" William Lloyd Garrison sent forth attacks against slavery which aroused the nation, and was joined in the crusade by such citizens of Massachusetts as Wendell Phillips, Frederick Douglass, John Quincy Adams and Charles Sumner.


Forty Two wrote:. . . in part as you noted by promoting a certain slant on "America's Greatest Socialist" Eugene Debs. The documentary provides no criticism or balance regarding Debs - it's love piece, and he even admires Debs' support for the Soviet revolution in Russia.


Ah, so you've watched the documentary, have you? If not, on what basis do you make your criticism? The source I gave earlier says that the video no longer exists, so you can't have seen it. That source describes the video as 'a glowing remembrance of the leftist icon,' but you go beyond that and accuse it of providing 'no criticism or balance.' Unless you watched it yourself, you have no evidence to support that accusation. Debs was a socialist, not a communist. He was involved in Social Democratic Party of America and the Social Party of America, both of which were democratic socialist organizations, not communist. You're desperately flailing to try to support your accusation that the APHS was a 'a Marxist propaganda group,' but you've been unable to present even a single piece of solid evidence to support your lame defamatory red-baiting. Sanders like Debs is a democratic socialist, not a Marxist per se.

Forty Two wrote:Yes, the APHS was a non-profit, which has no relevance to whether it was a propaganda producer. Bernie's description of it producing films and other materials "from an alternative point of view..." is illustrative, in that his "alternative point of view" was Socialist. His coup-de-gras was the Eugene Debs project, and Debs - the Marxist Socialist - was his hero. He presents a biased view, to advance his socialist ideas and he specifically sought to market the piece to schools so it could be shown to children, so they could see how great socialist Debs and socialism are.


Again no evidence, just an unsupported accusation that Sanders was propagandizing. The APHS produced film strips and one video tape, and your whole case rests on what is clearly a biased description of a video tape you haven't even seen.

Forty Two wrote:Rolling Stone magazine, that bastion of conservatism, called him the “red mayor in the Green Mountains.” Red means Socialist and/or Marxist, at least.

Sanders, incidentally, descried capitalism repeatedly - famously, he criticized capitalism for providing too much in the way of product options for the consumer. We, he thinks, should not have multiple deodorants to choose from.


None of that supports your accusation that the APHS was 'a Marxist propaganda group.' It is abundantly clear that your accusation is nothing but a repetition of something you read in a smear piece somewhere. Your ignorance of what it was and what Sanders' involvement with it was is undeniable. He co-founded the company, while your term 'organizer' implies that he was some sort of Marxist apparatchik. You seem unable to differentiate between democratic socialism and communism; it's all 'Marxism' to you.
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Re: Republicans

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:29 pm

For reference, though I have no illusions that Forty Two will drop his asinine 'MARXIST! MARXIST!' red-baiting.

'Democratic Socialism: 5 Ways It Ain’t What You Think!'

Ever since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, much attention has been focused on the that fact he calls himself a democratic socialist. Socialist, in the American lexicon, has a negative connotation, mainly because of common misunderstandings.

Sanders himself has tried many times to explain the difference between “socialism” and “democratic socialism,” but the right still seems hung up on misrepresenting his views and exploiting people’s fears. America has a rich socialist history many people are unaware of, but still fear the “S” word and picture evil dictators and red flags.

To quell any fears and to put a great deal of misinformation to rest, here are five things that democratic socialism is not.

1. Democratic Socialism Is Not Marxism
When Sanders spoke at the Georgetown University, he said clearly that he is NOT in favor of “workers owning the means of production,” which is one of the most important aspects of Marxism. Marxism would replace the corporate ownership of business and would hand the companies to the workers to manage and control. This eliminates the capitalist structure, something democratic socialism does not do.

2. It Is Not Communism
In Karl Marx’s writing, he often used the terms “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably. Many still do today in the Marxist movements, but outside of that, most people see Communism as the political structure of the (now-separated) USSR and China. Marxist communism is impossible to enact wholely, so these regimes did not represent true Marxism. Even so, they are much closer to Marxist communism than to democratic socialism.

3. It Is Not A Replacement For Capitalism
True socialism would replace the capitalist economy we live in now and replace it fully with a socialist one. While this is the dream of Marxists and socialists everywhere, this is not the plan under democratic socialism. Democratic socialism would instead put more restrictions on corporations and owners. This would include limitations on how much more money a CEO can make compared to their employees, and granting employees more rights and higher minimum wage.

4. It Is Not The Same As Regular Socialism
Democratic socialists have historically rejected the belief that the economy should be centrally planned (a centrally-planned economy is a socialist keystone belief). Instead, democratic socialism believes that some parts of society may be better if they are democratically planned: mass transit, medical care, minimum wage, etc. Democratic socialism still believes the capitalist market is best for consumer goods and services.

5. It Is Not Outside The Democratic Party
When Sanders announced he was running for President, he switched his party from Independent to Democrat, and many wondered why a socialist would run as a Democrat. Yet, what many didn’t understand was that Democratic Socialism is not a party in itself and is an ideology that actually exists inside the Democratic Party.

Democratic socialists only hope to strengthen the party by improving upon issues the nation faces today such as healthcare, college tuition, and a strengthened social safety net.
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Re: Republicans

Postby pErvin » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:15 am

I think that author (and perhaps Sander's himself) is confusing 'democratic socialism' with strong social democracy. Democratic socialism is essentially all forms of socialism that aren't authoritarian or technocracies. Not that there's necessarily a big difference between the two (DS and strong SD). Heavy state regulation over the means of production isn't going to be that vastly different to no private ownership of the means of production. The most important distinction is between strong social democracy (and DS, if you like) and Marxism, where Marxism tends to ironically lead to an elite class and ultimately authoritarianism. 'Scientific' Socialism, which is what Marxism basically is, is entirely pseudo-scientific.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 38395
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Republicans

Postby Tero » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:55 am

”I asked some guys who are smarter than me” kind of scientific? And of course we have all that soft ”science.” The kind that studies two legged critters in their habitat.
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
 
Posts: 20263
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Republicans

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:25 am

pErvin wrote:I think that author (and perhaps Sander's himself) is confusing 'democratic socialism' with strong social democracy. Democratic socialism is essentially all forms of socialism that aren't authoritarian or technocracies. Not that there's necessarily a big difference between the two (DS and strong SD). Heavy state regulation over the means of production isn't going to be that vastly different to no private ownership of the means of production. The most important distinction is between strong social democracy (and DS, if you like) and Marxism, where Marxism tends to ironically lead to an elite class and ultimately authoritarianism. 'Scientific' Socialism, which is what Marxism basically is, is entirely pseudo-scientific.


Are there specific points in the description that you believe are incorrect or inaccurate? Keep in mind that it appears Arel is describing the Democratic Socialists of America, not 'democratic socialism' as an abstract concept.
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Re: Republicans

Postby Animavore » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:32 am

Republicunts.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/355225-69-republicans-vote-against-puerto-rico-aid#bottom-story-socials

69 Republicans vote against aid for Puerto Rico, other disaster sites

Legislation to provide $36.5 billion in aid for communities affected by recent wildfires and hurricanes, including Puerto Rico, secured widespread support in the House on Thursday save for 69 Republicans.

The votes in opposition included many members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who believe government spending should not add to the deficit. [...]

Rep. Mark Walker (N.C.), who leads the Republican Study Committee, also voted against the legislation due to the lack of offsets.

“Hurricane aid shouldn’t be added to the debt. That’s akin to going to the Emergency Room after an injury, putting the charges on a credit card, and then pretending that the Visa bill is never going to arrive,” Walker wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
"I've always liked the irony of people using the word 'sheeple' because they've heard other people using it."

- Anonymous Internet Dude.
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35128
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: Republicans

Postby pErvin » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:51 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
pErvin wrote:I think that author (and perhaps Sander's himself) is confusing 'democratic socialism' with strong social democracy. Democratic socialism is essentially all forms of socialism that aren't authoritarian or technocracies. Not that there's necessarily a big difference between the two (DS and strong SD). Heavy state regulation over the means of production isn't going to be that vastly different to no private ownership of the means of production. The most important distinction is between strong social democracy (and DS, if you like) and Marxism, where Marxism tends to ironically lead to an elite class and ultimately authoritarianism. 'Scientific' Socialism, which is what Marxism basically is, is entirely pseudo-scientific.


Are there specific points in the description that you believe are incorrect or inaccurate? Keep in mind that it appears Arel is describing the Democratic Socialists of America, not 'democratic socialism' as an abstract concept.


If (s)he's talking about a US-centric definition, then it could be accurate. I don't really know what Americans consider democratic socialism to be. But in terms of the more general ideology, it's IS a replacement for capitalism, and it is about as close to 'regular socialism' as you can get. It's basically all socialism except for libertarian socialism (aka Anarchism), technocratic socialism, and the really whacky shit like Marxism and its authoritarian offshoots (which stopped being proper socialism the minute they became authoritarian).

I used to get hung up about social democracy being called a form of 'socialism', but I think it is not all that far from the truth, particularly in the really strong capitalist-social democracies. It's a mix of capitalistic and socialistic principles. As you increase government regulation over the means of production, society would be come less and less distinguishable from true socialism where there is no private ownership of the means of production. I'm not sure if there are different species of socialism depending on which non-private body owns the means of production, as I haven't really read much on the subject in quite a while.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 38395
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Republicans

Postby Forty Two » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:21 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
You can tap-dance all you like, your claim remains bullshit. The fact is that the UPWA was not a 'communist front' organization. A communist working at a meat-packing plant and helping workers build a union doesn't make the union a 'communist front.'
No, but leadership being communists might, and that's been the allegation. You say it wasn't a communist front. That doesn't make it a "Fact."
L'Emmerdeur wrote:The CIO expelled 11 unions in 1949-50 because of their communist affiliations; the UPWA was not one of them.


It doesn't mean the UPWA was not a communist front, or rife with communists. Also, as I noted, I haven't accused Bernie of being a communist. I've taken him at his word for being a Socialist. If the UPWA wasn't a communist front, fine. I have no problem with it not being a communist front. Doesn't change the fact that Bernie is a died-in-the-wool Socialist.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Moving on, you called Sanders an 'organizer' for the American People's History Society, which you assert is 'a Marxist propaganda group.' Again, bullshit; the American People's History Society was a non-profit company started by Sanders and his neighbor Nancy Barnett. They made educational film strips and at least one short documentary film. The subject of the film was Eugene Debs, but that in itself doesn't make the American People's History Society 'a Marxist propaganda group.'


It doesn't make it "not" a Marxist propaganda group.


You made the accusation--the burden of proof is yours. You haven't provided any evidence to support the accusation.


I explained why. There is no official list of approved "Marxist propaganda groups." It's a group, that's for sure, because companies are groups. Bernie and those working with him in that nonprofit entity constituted the group. It produced propaganda, including the Debs documentary, which is biased, politically motivated material designed to push Bernie's ideology. Propaganda. sounds like a marxist propaganda group to me. If it doesn't sound like one to you, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that Bernie created glowing, one-sided pro-Debs pro-Marxist material and tried to get it into schools and such.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:

Ah, so you've watched the documentary, have you?
Yes, it's freely available online.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Republicans

Postby Sean Hayden » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:45 pm

Who cares, you evil Republicans have been in our schools at least since I was a kid.
If you want to learn something online then don't ask a question. Instead, just post the wrong answer.

-John 3:16
User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Republicans

Postby Forty Two » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:58 pm

Indeed, we need less, not more, political indoctrination in primary school.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

PreviousNext

Return to News, Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hermit, NineBerry, Tyrannical and 5 guests