I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
Oh, and just fyi -- the Soviet Union no longer exists and Putin is not a communist. This is 2019, not 1979.
And yet nearly every Democrat running for President, with few exceptions, are promising openly Communistic policies. Why is that?
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
To be more specific, I’d support “The Communist Control Act of 2020” if it contained the proviso that no Communists, Socialists or Marxists would be allowed to serve in any capacity in the Federal government. At the State level, that’s a different matter. I still don’t support any of their views, but State regulations are different from Federal ones.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
In the 1950's and 1960's the Communist Soviet Union was at war with us. It was a mostly non-shooting war, but a war for supremacy none the less. As Kruschev told us: "We will bury you!". And that was not a figure of speech or a slogan, he meant it.
It became a struggle over which would survive: Communism or Democracy. It was a struggle to the death. (McCarthy took advantage of the very real and justified fear to start a cleansing campaign of those he disapproved of. Eventually he was exposed and stopped)
That ideological struggle. That war between communism and democracy is over. It's now just a part of history. But, today, there are radicals and crackpots who would fight it all over again. That's just dumb. They should direct their efforts at something positive -- like going after those who actually want to harm us.
That struggle is over, but there's a new struggle (or rather, the re-emergence of a different old struggle) -- democracy vs. right wing authoritarianism. The oligarchs/fascists are back with a vengeance, using Leninist tactics to disrupt democracy. And they are winning.
Yes, true. But recently those oligarch's/fascists are trying to make communism the enemy -- maybe partly because they hate it but more likely to distract from their own crimes against society.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
Oh, and just fyi -- the Soviet Union no longer exists and Putin is not a communist. This is 2019, not 1979.
And yet nearly every Democrat running for President, with few exceptions, are promising openly Communistic policies. Why is that?
Either you do not understand what communism is, or you are getting your information from some crackpot propaganda outlet. Either way you need to educate yourself better.
Comments
To be more specific, I’d support “The Communist Control Act of 2020” if it contained the proviso that no Communists, Socialists or Marxists would be allowed to serve in any capacity in the Federal government. At the State level, that’s a different matter. I still don’t support any of their views, but State regulations are different from Federal ones.