Antifa

[WoodsCraft]

So that is a no?

If we are going to take away the rights of others, you'd think the least we could do is create a clear definition of what is illegal. What about the views of Stalin or Mao? Those are different forms of communism than what ol' Karl put forward. Do we need to include them?

We can't even settle on what a Republican is all the time (we do cry RINO a lot here). How are we going to criminalize communist ideology if we cannot clearly define it.

Are farm subsidies communist? what about social security? I don't necessarily think they are, but there are those who do.

I love how liberals will dice hairs ... Stalin was a Marxist in the most distilled form and its well known. Mao also was a Marxist who put a magnifying glass aimed at amplifying class struggle even amongst peasants . That is the fundamental difference between a regular Marxist and a Maoist


According to Alinsky and other well known Marxists yes Social Security and Farm Subsidies are absolutely socialist at their core.

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

 

[donner]

I love how liberals will dice hairs ... Stalin was a Marxist in the most distilled form and its well known. Mao also was a Marxist who put a magnifying glass aimed at amplifying class struggle even amongst peasants . That is the fundamental difference between a regular Marxist and a Maoist


According to Alinsky and other well known Marxists yes Social Security and Farm Subsidies are absolutely socialist at their core.

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Putting aside your attempt to pigeon hole my support for first amendment protections for all as 'liberal', thank you for illustrating my point. If we cannot agree on an actual definition, how would we make communism illegal? Are we strictly going with the 'most distilled form' or a broader definition of what would make someone a communist. Does having any support for things 'communist' make it a crime? If not, which ones would and wouldn't?

There are many on the 'right' who view SS as something they've earned and subsidies as beneficial. Should those people be deemed criminals because, as you said, some view them as socialist?

Or we could just admit that having different political ideologies is part of our system, good or bad.

 

[JD8]

No more than the people who are blind right and unaware of their own hypocrisies

Whatabout harder daddy.....

 

[Rez Exelon]

Whatabout harder daddy.....

Sure thing son....

 

[sh00ter]

Tell me how I'm wrong. Based on the post and what I know of Rittenhouse, it sounds like the same thing with, as noted above, markedly different ideological lines being the difference.

He was a dumbazz kid...but ultimately, he had a right to be there and when a guy aimed a glock 26 at him, he still had a right to self defense. But yes, he went there and put himself in a dangerous situation but we all carry everyday in case we wind up in a dangerous situation. There are instances of both left and right wing groups open carrying at protests.

 

[Cold Smoke]

The Constitution protects everyone equally.

The Constitution also specifically provides for a Republican (restricted government inside the lines) form of governmental structure and no other. That’s why I don’t understand why when policritters or anyone else operates outside the parameters of the Constitution they don’t get dealt with like feral hogs, coyotes or any other vermin. They have abandoned their protection and skipped into the weapons free zone, after a fair trial and speedy hanging of course.

The milk chocolate messiah used to lament that the Constitution did not allow for the gubbermint to do to, I mean for you.

 

[Raido Free America]

Maybe this should go in another forum but it's more of a carry question from me. In the link, several of these goons are dressed in body armor, helmets and masks, all black. They are open carrying pistols and ARs slung in front of them. Several approach protestors with an opposite view and seem to appear like they are intimidating them before an actual assault happens.

So, dressed as they are, loaded as they are and putting themselves in the situation as they did, how is this legal? (Until the mace showed up to make it assault).
I imagine I'm ignorant but I don't understand why these guys can be geared up like that and still be within the law. Heckuva intimidation factor.

GOONS

GOOD point! I am 100% for the rule of legeslated laws, a system that has served us well for 246 years. As long as these laws are enforced by human beings, the tendency exist for SOME of these people to let that power go to their head, just simple human nature!! This applies to anyone that is placed in a position of POWER, BY WE THE PEOPLE!!! Judges, news media, celebs, and especially politicians!! WE SIMPLY MUST TAKE CARE OF OUR BUSINESS, AND OVERSEE THESE EMPLOYEES, WE ENTRUST WITH SPECIAL POWERS!! The vast majority of law enforcement in this country, are HONORABLE AMERICANS DOING A DIFFICULT, DANGEROUS, JOB VERY WELL, AND DESERVE OUR SUPPORT, AND THANKS!! Dressing like theuy somtimes do, the BLACK NINJA WARRIORS, is over the top, could only be to intimidate civilians! What has been lost is, THEY ARE ONLY THERE TO PROTECT US, AND ARE PART OF US AND 98% OF US, ARE NOT THE ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dennishoddy]

No more than the people who are blind right and unaware of their own hypocrisies

 

[HillsideDesolate]

No more than the people who are blind right and unaware of their own hypocrisies

I am "blind right" because I was once a leftist. Minds, like mouths, must be opened before they are closed.

I don't hate leftist because I don't understand them, I hate them because I know EXACTLY what they are.

 

[Rez Exelon]

I am "blind right" because I was once a leftist. Minds, like mouths, must be opened before they are closed.

I don't hate leftist because I don't understand them, I hate them because I know EXACTLY what they are.

All of them? All the different sects and divisions?