The Insanity Of The Left

ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
We see it here everyday from anna, from artie, from eider, from rusha

But they're a brief look at what's happening in the rest of the online world.

This is what passes for reason in the feminist world on Facebook for example:



 
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
Yeah, here's more "bravery". Coming up from behind to kick a man in the head who had already been beaten on so badly he's not able to get back to his feet.

https://twitter.com/FromKalen/status/1295245694177951748

Oh, what a heroic act. And why did they beat him? Why did they chase him down? Because he defended a transgender who was being robbed by these "brave heroes". And here I thought according to BLM's and Antifa's websites they are pro transgender. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. Not a one of you leftists believe anything you say. If you did none of this would ever happen.
 
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
quip said:
In your mind....what (or which) is the insanity you're referencing here?
Click to expand...

Multiple people attacking from behind. Not enough courage to meet your enemy face to face even when you outnumber him. And there were armed people who attacked the kid. The guy has stated publicly that his only regret was not have pumped an entire magazine into the kid.

This is the "tolerance" of the marxists.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ok doser said:
There's no reasoning with these people. They are insane.
Click to expand...
Looks to me like there are far too many insane people willing to think they have the upper hand such that things will get worse before they get better.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
There are nut cases on both extremes, so it's easy enough to find examples. As it turns out- most aren't way out there on the extremes, despite the identity politics that tries to lump everybody together.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
chair said:
... most aren't way out there on the extremes ....
Click to expand...


I don't believe that's true anymore. You have a right wing that was willing to elect to the Presidency a man who was not qualified for the job to avoid the election of a woman who was not qualified for the job. You have a left wing that was willing to elect a man who was not qualified for the job, who were willing to elect a woman who was not qualified for the job, and who are now eager to elect a man who is not qualified for the job.

If this isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
ok doser said:
I don't believe that's true anymore. You have a right wing that was willing to elect to the Presidency a man who was not qualified for the job to avoid the election of a woman who was not qualified for the job. You have a left wing that was willing to elect a man who was not qualified for the job, who were willing to elect a woman who was not qualified for the job, and who are now eager to elect a man who is not qualified for the job.

If this isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

If the US is really the way you describe, it is bad news. Though many would argue with you about who is 'qualified' and who isn't. And when it comes down to it, voters have to make a choice between two candidates, and often vote for what they perceive as the lesser evil, not for a person they think is 'qualified' for the job.
 
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
Arthur Brain said:
"Satanic ideology"? Are you on drugs? Serious question.

:kookoo:
Click to expand...

So you don't understand that Marx was a Lucifarian. He wrote odes to Satan, hated Christianity, and was as fraudulent as a person can get. He was also a virulent racist. That says his religion is satanic. You don't understand that he created a religion either.

You need to do some actual research from non-Marxist sources for a change. Instead of always reading pro Marx sources do some deep dives into who the man actually was. Stop being a one-sided reader and researcher.

Here's a place to start. The author was one of the leading Marxists of the early 20th century and one of the most popular authors of political writings of his day. He was also a great friend of Lenin and the founding editor-in-chief of The Masses. https://archive.org/details/eastman_socialism
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
chair said:
Though many would argue with you about who is 'qualified' and who isn't.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the Presidency of the United States of America. The Chief Executive Office of the country. We have almost always in the last 100 years elected candidates who have had significant EXECUTIVE experience in government, typically found in either serving as governor of a state or as vice president. This was true of GW Bush, Bill Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Roosevelt. The anomalies are Eisenhower, who served as supreme commander of all Allied armed forces during World War II, and Kennedy with 16 years experience in Congress.

The election of 2008 was anomalous in that none of the 4 candidates had executive experience except for the Republican vice presidential candidate, whose experience was minor. In 2016 the only one of the 4 candidates on the 2 major tickets who had ANY executive experience in government was Pence.

This year on the Republican ticket you have a presidential candidate with 4 years experience serving as president and a vice presidential candidate with 4 years experience serving as vice president in addition to his service as governor of Indiana.

On the Democrat ticket? A former vice president with dementia.
 
Last edited:
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
ffreeloader said:
So you don't understand that Marx was a Lucifarian. He wrote odes to Satan, hated Christianity, and was as fraudulent as a person can get. He was also a virulent racist. That says his religion is satanic. You don't understand that he created a religion either.

You need to do some actual research from non-Marxist sources for a change. Instead of always reading pro Marx sources do some deep dives into who the man actually was. Stop being a one-sided reader and researcher.

Here's a place to start. The author was one of the leading Marxists of the early 20th century and one of the most popular authors of political writings of his day. He was also a great friend of Lenin and the founding editor-in-chief of The Masses. https://archive.org/details/eastman_socialism
Click to expand...

"Pro Marx Sources"? That ain't where I go to for research material and your facile "ideas" about anyone who veers left of center in their politics and beliefs is just an unfunny joke. You are out there and then some...

:freak:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top