You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.
Republicans are standing on principle here.
Besides, it's not really a "liberal" media. It's a stupid media. That it appears liberal is only because liberal is stupid.
That is a poor conclusion, while this may be true for previous instances, this is not necessarily true for all instances. It should be noted that a dictatorship can any apply to any form of governance, including fascism.
To which I say,
The Grandparent said that communism is a precursor of dictatorship. Not that it is the exclusive, one-and-only way to get a dictatorship.
he President of the US has labeled North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil". He has already invaded one country on the list and is pushing for sanctions against the other two.
I keep seeing this tacit assumption: the Axis of Evil consists only and exclusively of those entities mentioned in that SotA address.
Let's recall,
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil
"States like these" would seem to imply the list given is not exhaustive.
Dictatorship of the proletariat simply refers to the idea that the workers, rather than the capitalists, should be in control.
So, all the Marxist support of dictatorship is just a case of being too cute by half? Giggle giggle, snicker snicker, lookie he called the capitalists "dictators!" That's soooo funny!
Oh, and loookie what Marx's stupid followers can do, they can preen and act cute and funny too! "...the workers, rather than the capitalists...." Capitalists don't work! Tee-hee, snicker snicker.
A very wise man once said, "words mean things." If Marx did not mean "dictatorship," he should not have endorsed the word and later taken it as his own.
It is too bad Marx wrote before smilies. Hundreds of millions of lives could have been spared if his little dictators knew that he was only joking.
Do not blame an ideology for the people who believes in it.
Okay, fine. Why does (innocent for sake of argument) Marxism attract the most stupid and violent people?
Interesting assertion. You don't back it up with anything though.
An assertion that is completely obvious needs little or no backing up. But here is some just for fun:
Russia: Stalin, Lenin China: Mao Cambodia: Pol Pot
Perhaps the author of the parent should pull his head out of his ass.
Perhaps the author of the parent needs to find one case where Marxism did not lead inexorably to dictatorship.
Then, if he hasn't killed himself over wasting his life believing in fairy tales, he should try to figure out why Marxism leads inevitably to dictatorship.
Time has shown that you cannot hurt the rich with taxes of any kind.
You only hurt the people trying to get rich.
So inheritance taxes, whatever their purpose, end up destroying small businesses and family enterprises.
It is so bad, the goal of many is to die broke. Using lawyers and accountants, they must distribute the family holdings via tiny bits every now and then to their posterity.
The truly rich, they are surrounded by clouds of lawyers and accountants, so they are not going to get hurt by any tax at any time ever.
While to a rancher, hiring even one lawyer to help, that costs as much as a few really nice tractors.
But the rancher has little choice, because he must die broke.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that treason is treated like jaywalking, go right ahead.
Okay, exit polls done by the lying media, or vote counts by Diebold?
I'll take Diebold every time.
Besides, it's not really a "liberal" media. It's a stupid media. That it appears liberal is only because liberal is stupid.
So those who work for UNIPCC are not scientists.
You haven't heard the news:
Dr. Lysenko has given orders that we must "get rid of the Medieval Warming Period."
Pass it on.
Lisp is the most important language you will never use.
Just because you can put words near each other, doesn't mean that you should.
Things like facts really help. They'll help you be less full of shit.
The people are in Guantanamo because America is great.
If we were not such a bunch of great people, they would be dead.
We don't need to take prisoners. Shoot 'em in the field! No muss, no fuss, no fourth estate or fifth column parading them around as innocents.
But we took prisoners, and for this we are hated.
"Communist on the outside, Legalist on the inside."
In other words, Chinese communism is (now) just a garment they wear to endear themselves to the West's Useful Idiots.
Underneath it's the same despotic legalism as practiced by Shihuang.
To which Pa says,
To which I say,
The Grandparent said that communism is a precursor of dictatorship. Not that it is the exclusive, one-and-only way to get a dictatorship.
The rest of the Parent post is similarly stupid.
Let's recall,
"States like these" would seem to imply the list given is not exhaustive.
You capitalize "PETA" but not "Bush?"
If Bush was even a tenth the evil overlord he's made out to be, why, why, you'd be drawn and quartered, for this obviously intentional insult.
Unfortunately, the North Koreans are dying because of Jimmy Carter.
Oh, and loookie what Marx's stupid followers can do, they can preen and act cute and funny too! "...the workers, rather than the capitalists...." Capitalists don't work! Tee-hee, snicker snicker.
A very wise man once said, "words mean things." If Marx did not mean "dictatorship," he should not have endorsed the word and later taken it as his own.
It is too bad Marx wrote before smilies. Hundreds of millions of lives could have been spared if his little dictators knew that he was only joking.
Okay, fine. Why does (innocent for sake of argument) Marxism attract the most stupid and violent people?
To which the parent said,
An assertion that is completely obvious needs little or no backing up. But here is some just for fun:
Russia: Stalin, Lenin
China: Mao
Cambodia: Pol Pot
Perhaps the author of the parent should pull his head out of his ass.
Perhaps the author of the parent needs to find one case where Marxism did not lead inexorably to dictatorship.
Then, if he hasn't killed himself over wasting his life believing in fairy tales, he should try to figure out why Marxism leads inevitably to dictatorship.
Alex Jones does not think.
This is the true meaning of "bipartisan:" both parties getting together to act like idiots.
Time has shown that you cannot hurt the rich with taxes of any kind.
You only hurt the people trying to get rich.
So inheritance taxes, whatever their purpose, end up destroying small businesses and family enterprises.
It is so bad, the goal of many is to die broke. Using lawyers and accountants, they must distribute the family holdings via tiny bits every now and then to their posterity.
The truly rich, they are surrounded by clouds of lawyers and accountants, so they are not going to get hurt by any tax at any time ever.
While to a rancher, hiring even one lawyer to help, that costs as much as a few really nice tractors.
But the rancher has little choice, because he must die broke.
Glad to see the EU has started their own Department of Duh!
Many courses are also available in MPEG-4 which makes me happy.
I ask the MIT alumni I know to write something complementary of OCW on the "memo" line of their donation checks.
All my good profs stroked out or suicided over Winter Breaks. OCW fills in the holes.
Did I hear right that it has a single button?