Deleted67195711User

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings? Someone whose only qualification is "I was there"? No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective Do you know what is really sad? When I emigrated from my born country because of the Communism, the Communism was starting to grow in the country where I emigrated. I tried to warn people about the dangerous of the implementation of these ideas. Many of them, like you, called my arguments emotionals and irrationals. They told me to read more and called me ignorant. But time is wiser and gave me the reason. Now all those people are suffering what is Communism in their flesh. Many have emigrated, others have lost all and live in misery and those who opposed are in jail or dead. Reading is good, but it doesnt make you necessarily wiser if the source is wrong. You know nothing about me or my proffesion to call me ignorant or poorly educated as you have called everyone with a different point of view. But dont worry, I have no hurt feelings about it. I complied warning you. Is the least I can do and I will always do it no matter if people believe me or not. You can believe what you want, think what you want and do what you want. Have a nice day. What is really sad is the belief that "I was there" makes you smarter than everybody else and that the only thoughts on the subject which matter are yours. What is really sad is that you ignore the collected learning of mankind and the lessons of history. all of which are recorded in the libraries of the world. Any society or person which ignores its past is doomed to repeat it, and deserves to. What is really sad is that you are unable to put down you hatred and anger long enough to look at the world from any perspective but your own. And what is really, really sad is that you are trapped in that world of hatred and anger, in a prison of your own making. You wear the shackles of your past willingly and eagerly. Like I said in the beginning, I do not which to diminish your experiences. They are what defines you and binds you. Anger? You are the one who calls ignorant or diminishes everyone else here who does not agree with you, including me, which turns into a personal attack when everyone here is discussing about an ideology. Even so, you can not deny facts. But I understand that it can be frustrating to defend the indefendible. But you've got a point. Yes, Marxism should be taught as it should be taught its devastating consequences. And, BTW, I am not alone, I am not the only one, there thousands, millions who "were there". But people like you wont listen anyway. People like you think "All these people is wrong, Marx was right, we gotta try again". And the result is the same. Basically, reading between lines, Marx thought the proletarians was a mass of ignorant people who should be leaded by people like him. Isn't that a way of thinking that people like him was superior and the rest of people was inferior? A real "deep" tought coming from a man who was unable to support himself or his family. Yes, I have read a lot, I have read between lines, I have learnt the lesson and, by the way, I have also lived the experience. So that place you are trying to go, I went and I am came back long time ago. And I am not the only one. Ignorant is not the one who doesnt read, ignorant is the one who read and doesnt learn anything. "Socialism of any type leads to the destruction of the human spirit" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Was Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, a man who lived the real horror, a "sad, angry, full of hate man"? Shouldnt we pay attention to his arguments because they are "emotionals" arguments? Well, I do prefer to listen the arguments of someone who lived in his flesh the horrors of the applied Socialism than to listen the arguments of Karl Marx followers, who have never lived under such regimes. That is the best way of not repeating the errors from the past. I wouldn't bother to waste any more of your time on him. He is a pseudo intellectual with a heavy dose of ego, and arrogance. You won't be able to 'win' an argument with him, as he will simply deflect, demean your character/intelligence, and deny doing things that you only need to read back a post or two, to see that he is indeed guilty. I just put him on my ignore list, so I am spared having to read his drivel. I have better things to waste my time on. You can't successfully argue your position, so you use a straw man attack. And you do it using the very tactics you accuse me of using. You accuse me of arrogance, when all I have done is provide you with the documented truth. Well, here is one last truth for you. You are so wrapped up in yourself and your opinions that you do not want to see any truth which does not match you preconceived notions. If a truth does not affirm your ideology, it is automatically discarded. And I assume that is why you have blocked me, so you won't have to see any more of those inconvenient and uncomfortable truths. Congrats! You have successfully and thoroughly proved my point. You don't have the faintest idea who I am, or what I am about, but, you can make judgements of this nature based on our interaction on a 'debate' forum. (of which I am notorious for arguing unpopular positions......) I would put forth that YOU are the one that cannot see the truth that is right in front of you. Go back, read your own posts. I would ask that you try and be objective, but, I know that is a lost cause.... So you are so wrapped up in being 'right', that you wouldn't know a truth if it jumped up and bit you in the rear. You dismiss a mans' opinions, and direct observations, accuse him of being 'wrapped up in his own hatred', while you yourself are wrapped up in your own self-love. I have dealt with folks just like you for a good portion of my life, and came to the realization that it simply doesn't matter what I say, you will find some reason to disagree with me, and back it up with your 'facts'. Even if I appear to agree with you...... And here I am doing exactly what I accuse you of. :smile: Couple different perspectives on that. 1. Takes one to know one. Or, 2. Training in profiling. I will let you figure out on your own which it is. :D And once more, into the breach. I am sure you will have a snappy comeback, based on stuff you have read....... (including what I have written.) Make it good, make it to the point, see how many insults you can stuff into it in as few words as possible. I know you can do it, as you are oh so good at it. See if you have any more pearls to toss. My wife needs a new necklace, and she just LOVES pearls. Oh, and by the way, the 'thank you for your service' was genuine. From one Vet to another. So, you do have at least one redeeming characteristic. And no response for our resident experienced man? Why not?? Someone else you won't cast any more pearls before?? I do not need to know you to draw reasonable and rational conclusions from your posts and the way in which you choose to communicate. Do you honestly think that your posts in this thread are the only ones which I have to evaluate your character? I read your posts in the thread Racial Tolerance or Just an Act. You called PoorlyAged "arrogant" and "holier than thou" in that thread, when all he did was debunk all your false arguments supporting 'racial' distinctions. So from my chair, "arrogant" and 'holier than thou" are your opening salvo when you find your arguments failing in the face of facts. At that point, reason and logic are abandoned and you start resorting to insults and ad hominems. So being called "arrogant" and 'holier than thou" by you means I am doing something right and I consider it a badge of honor. And finally, you use another straw man attack, using my choice to cease discussion with someone. But then again, that is par for you course. Not reading everything and assuming you know what you are talking about. So, for your education: Now, either take me out of your ignore list (since you obviously aren't ignoring my posts), or respect your choice to ignore inconvenient and uncomfortable truths.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings? Someone whose only qualification is "I was there"? No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective Do you know what is really sad? When I emigrated from my born country because of the Communism, the Communism was starting to grow in the country where I emigrated. I tried to warn people about the dangerous of the implementation of these ideas. Many of them, like you, called my arguments emotionals and irrationals. They told me to read more and called me ignorant. But time is wiser and gave me the reason. Now all those people are suffering what is Communism in their flesh. Many have emigrated, others have lost all and live in misery and those who opposed are in jail or dead. Reading is good, but it doesnt make you necessarily wiser if the source is wrong. You know nothing about me or my proffesion to call me ignorant or poorly educated as you have called everyone with a different point of view. But dont worry, I have no hurt feelings about it. I complied warning you. Is the least I can do and I will always do it no matter if people believe me or not. You can believe what you want, think what you want and do what you want. Have a nice day. What is really sad is the belief that "I was there" makes you smarter than everybody else and that the only thoughts on the subject which matter are yours. What is really sad is that you ignore the collected learning of mankind and the lessons of history. all of which are recorded in the libraries of the world. Any society or person which ignores its past is doomed to repeat it, and deserves to. What is really sad is that you are unable to put down you hatred and anger long enough to look at the world from any perspective but your own. And what is really, really sad is that you are trapped in that world of hatred and anger, in a prison of your own making. You wear the shackles of your past willingly and eagerly. Like I said in the beginning, I do not which to diminish your experiences. They are what defines you and binds you. Anger? You are the one who calls ignorant or diminishes everyone else here who does not agree with you, including me, which turns into a personal attack when everyone here is discussing about an ideology. Even so, you can not deny facts. But I understand that it can be frustrating to defend the indefendible. But you've got a point. Yes, Marxism should be taught as it should be taught its devastating consequences. And, BTW, I am not alone, I am not the only one, there thousands, millions who "were there". But people like you wont listen anyway. People like you think "All these people is wrong, Marx was right, we gotta try again". And the result is the same. Basically, reading between lines, Marx thought the proletarians was a mass of ignorant people who should be leaded by people like him. Isn't that a way of thinking that people like him was superior and the rest of people was inferior? A real "deep" tought coming from a man who was unable to support himself or his family. Yes, I have read a lot, I have read between lines, I have learnt the lesson and, by the way, I have also lived the experience. So that place you are trying to go, I went and I am came back long time ago. And I am not the only one. Ignorant is not the one who doesnt read, ignorant is the one who read and doesnt learn anything. "Socialism of any type leads to the destruction of the human spirit" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Was Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, a man who lived the real horror, a "sad, angry, full of hate man"? Shouldnt we pay attention to his arguments because they are "emotionals" arguments? Well, I do prefer to listen the arguments of someone who lived in his flesh the horrors of the applied Socialism than to listen the arguments of Karl Marx followers, who have never lived under such regimes. That is the best way of not repeating the errors from the past. I wouldn't bother to waste any more of your time on him. He is a pseudo intellectual with a heavy dose of ego, and arrogance. You won't be able to 'win' an argument with him, as he will simply deflect, demean your character/intelligence, and deny doing things that you only need to read back a post or two, to see that he is indeed guilty. I just put him on my ignore list, so I am spared having to read his drivel. I have better things to waste my time on. You can't successfully argue your position, so you use a straw man attack. And you do it using the very tactics you accuse me of using. You accuse me of arrogance, when all I have done is provide you with the documented truth. Well, here is one last truth for you. You are so wrapped up in yourself and your opinions that you do not want to see any truth which does not match you preconceived notions. If a truth does not affirm your ideology, it is automatically discarded. And I assume that is why you have blocked me, so you won't have to see any more of those inconvenient and uncomfortable truths.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings? Someone whose only qualification is "I was there"? No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective Do you know what is really sad? When I emigrated from my born country because of the Communism, the Communism was starting to grow in the country where I emigrated. I tried to warn people about the dangerous of the implementation of these ideas. Many of them, like you, called my arguments emotionals and irrationals. They told me to read more and called me ignorant. But time is wiser and gave me the reason. Now all those people are suffering what is Communism in their flesh. Many have emigrated, others have lost all and live in misery and those who opposed are in jail or dead. Reading is good, but it doesnt make you necessarily wiser if the source is wrong. You know nothing about me or my proffesion to call me ignorant or poorly educated as you have called everyone with a different point of view. But dont worry, I have no hurt feelings about it. I complied warning you. Is the least I can do and I will always do it no matter if people believe me or not. You can believe what you want, think what you want and do what you want. Have a nice day. What is really sad is the belief that "I was there" makes you smarter than everybody else and that the only thoughts on the subject which matter are yours. What is really sad is that you ignore the collected learning of mankind and the lessons of history. all of which are recorded in the libraries of the world. Any society or person which ignores its past is doomed to repeat it, and deserves to. What is really sad is that you are unable to put down you hatred and anger long enough to look at the world from any perspective but your own. And what is really, really sad is that you are trapped in that world of hatred and anger, in a prison of your own making. You wear the shackles of your past willingly and eagerly. Like I said in the beginning, I do not which to diminish your experiences. They are what defines you and binds you. Anger? You are the one who calls ignorant or diminishes everyone else here who does not agree with you, including me, which turns into a personal attack when everyone here is discussing about an ideology. Even so, you can not deny facts. But I understand that it can be frustrating to defend the indefendible. But you've got a point. Yes, Marxism should be taught as it should be taught its devastating consequences. And, BTW, I am not alone, I am not the only one, there thousands, millions who "were there". But people like you wont listen anyway. People like you think "All these people is wrong, Marx was right, we gotta try again". And the result is the same. Basically, reading between lines, Marx thought the proletarians was a mass of ignorant people who should be leaded by people like him. Isn't that a way of thinking that people like him was superior and the rest of people was inferior? A real "deep" tought coming from a man who was unable to support himself or his family. Yes, I have read a lot, I have read between lines, I have learnt the lesson and, by the way, I have also lived the experience. So that place you are trying to go, I went and I am came back long time ago. And I am not the only one. Ignorant is not the one who doesnt read, ignorant is the one who read and doesnt learn anything. "Socialism of any type leads to the destruction of the human spirit" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Was Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, a man who lived the real horror, a "sad, angry, full of hate man"? Shouldnt we pay attention to his arguments because they are "emotionals" arguments? Well, I do prefer to listen the arguments of someone who lived in his flesh the horrors of the applied Socialism than to listen the arguments of Karl Marx followers, who have never lived under such regimes. That is the best way of not repeating the errors from the past. And still you cling to your hatred and anger. You shout it with every post wherein you attribute statements to me which I never wrote. You scream it every time you repeat the lie that I support socialism. I wish no further discourse with you until you raise your level of discourse.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings? Someone whose only qualification is "I was there"? No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective Do you know what is really sad? When I emigrated from my born country because of the Communism, the Communism was starting to grow in the country where I emigrated. I tried to warn people about the dangerous of the implementation of these ideas. Many of them, like you, called my arguments emotionals and irrationals. They told me to read more and called me ignorant. But time is wiser and gave me the reason. Now all those people are suffering what is Communism in their flesh. Many have emigrated, others have lost all and live in misery and those who opposed are in jail or dead. Reading is good, but it doesnt make you necessarily wiser if the source is wrong. You know nothing about me or my proffesion to call me ignorant or poorly educated as you have called everyone with a different point of view. But dont worry, I have no hurt feelings about it. I complied warning you. Is the least I can do and I will always do it no matter if people believe me or not. You can believe what you want, think what you want and do what you want. Have a nice day. What is really sad is the belief that "I was there" makes you smarter than everybody else and that the only thoughts on the subject which matter are yours. What is really sad is that you ignore the collected learning of mankind and the lessons of history. all of which are recorded in the libraries of the world. Any society or person which ignores its past is doomed to repeat it, and deserves to. What is really sad is that you are unable to put down you hatred and anger long enough to look at the world from any perspective but your own. And what is really, really sad is that you are trapped in that world of hatred and anger, in a prison of your own making. You wear the shackles of your past willingly and eagerly. Like I said in the beginning, I do not which to diminish your experiences. They are what defines you and binds you.

Your response was equally predictable. Ad hominem upon ad hominem. Your refusal to read anything and actually educate yourself on the topic under discussion should tell everyone what your posts are worth. And the admission that you are not concerned about the topic should warn the world that there is another agenda for your posting. Frankly, your "thank you for your service" has the hollow, meaningless and thoughtless ring of a line you learned somewhere and regurgitate upon receiving the appropriate stimuli. A Pavlovian response, as it where. And respond or not as you wish. I will be here, facts at the ready, and the educated, book reading, elitist, intellectualism you despise.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. Read a book. Learn the difference between a political system and an economic system. Isn't it the same? Isn't "owned by state" just a bigger form of "owned in common"? Because question is if your authoritarianism communism is not decadence of your idealistic communism. How socialism can be worse? what is "hands of community" other than "hands of central authority" in bigger form? Socialism sound to me like starting with the same background like communism and developed better. Because it does count with reality. You cannot do it differently - some goods will always have to be held in public authorities, question is if the purpose is stated to be for the poor and common good, or if it is purely in hands of individuals to do whatever they want with it - that is totalism? But as I said before, still I believe it - the worst mistake of totalistic communism was to remove faith and anything supernatural in fear, that is like cutting your hand and goes against nature of humans, but all the rest does sound like decadence: we are all equal=nobody can be different=nobody is allowed to have their own dreams=people will live double life everything should be held in common=nobody is allowed to have somethign extra=everything belong to the community=people will steal everyone can work for 1 goal=everyone should work for 1 goal=nobody is allowed to work for themselves.. = people will stop working Why? Because that is nature of people - they want to be different, they want to own things for themselves and they want to work on their own things. So if communism will be on the level of state, it will have to force people into it, that will lead to totalism and totalism to total decay and bankruptcy. That is atleast how it does sound to me - after all the discussions here and after all the thinking. EDIT: But in China - how they do it? They control their people somehow, don't they? So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings of someone whose only qualification is "I was there". No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective. Learn the difference between what it says in a book, (theory) and how it works in actual practice. The two are seldom even remotely comparable. I am FAR more likely to trust the experience of someone that has actually LIVED in such a system, than some intellectual that has only read about it, and has zero practical experience with EITHER system. By your belief, I am an expert on war simply because I fought in one. What a crock of < expletive deleted >. I know my experience only and my experience was limited to specific places and specific periods of time. So even though I fought in a war, I know nothing about the totality of war other than what I read in books. The very books, in fact, which the Department of Defense uses to teach future officers at Annapolis, West Point, and Colorado Springs. It seems that The Department of Defense recognizes the value of books as the recorded thinking and history of a people. Experience is a lousy source for anything but anecdotal information. And in spite of the trope, experience is a terrible teacher. Experience is haphazard, erratic and arbitrary. No two people have the same experience. And no two people experience the same event the same way. So relying on experience to make a value judgement is a risky proposition at best. Remember always that "first hand accounts" based on ''experience" are anecdotes. Anecdotes come with few to no verifiable facts, and 'word of mouth' is often a tactic used in disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Just look at what happened in El Norte during the 2016 Presidential campaign. So, I am prone to believe data which are repeatable, measurable and verifiable, and which comes from a reputable source. The kinds of data found in books. If you want some information that is not anecdotal and comes from books, Lawrence Martin-Bittman wrote three. Before he defected in 1968, Bittman was an intelligence officer specializing in disinformation for the Czechoslovak Intelligence Service. Or try the books by Oleg Gordievsky. He defected in 1961, became an Agent for MI6 and returned to Russia. Or Alexander Mikhailovich Zuyev a Soviet Air Force pilot who flew a MIG 29 to Turkey and defected in 1989. One last thought. Most of those that defected from the Soviet Union were 'educated intellectuals'. The kind of people that read books. I wonder, is there a correlation?

True. As I said, "I did not want to get into the "liberal press" arguments which inevitably follow links to news reports". At that point, it becomes a discussion of the press and no longer about the 14th Amendment. My Don Quixote suit is thread bare and I have no desire to tilt at that windmill.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism. Communism and Socialism share the same ideals: uniformity, collectivism, central authority and so on. Both are bad and lead to totalitarianism because the only way you can implement collectivism and uniformity is by force. I have seen it and I have lived it. My "emotional" arguments, as you named them, are based on facts and lived experiecens thanks to the implementation, by force, of these "beautiful" ideals discussed here and today by "intellectuals" which, by the way, have never lived in their own flesh what is like Communism and Socialism in the practice and that pretend to know it all. No Communism and neither Socialism work. Both lead to misery and totalitarianism and end in permanent econimic disaster. You can theorize as long as you want about it but real facts and statistics of Communism and Socialism applied will always hit you in the face. Listen the experience of people who have lived it and no the theories of people who dont. So what you are saying is that I should destroy all the history books, all the political science books, all the periodicals, all the documentaries, all the books on economic theory, and listen only to your overwrought, irrational and emotional ravings? Someone whose only qualification is "I was there"? No, I think not. I stand by my original statement, you are too close to be objective. Isn't it the same? Isn't "owned by state" just a bigger form of "owned in common"? Because question is if your authoritarianism communism is not decadence of your idealistic communism. How socialism can be worse? what is "hands of community" other than "hands of central authority" in bigger form? Socialism sound to me like starting with the same background like communism and developed better. Because it does count with reality. You cannot do it differently - some goods will always have to be held in public authorities, question is if the purpose is stated to be for the poor and common good, or if it is purely in hands of individuals to do whatever they want with it - that is totalism? But as I said before, still I believe it - the worst mistake of totalistic communism was to remove faith and anything supernatural in fear, that is like cutting your hand and goes against nature of humans, but all the rest does sound like decadence: we are all equal=nobody can be different=nobody is allowed to have their own dreams=people will live double life everything should be held in common=nobody is allowed to have somethign extra=everything belong to the community=people will steal everyone can work for 1 goal=everyone should work for 1 goal=nobody is allowed to work for themselves.. = people will stop working Why? Because that is nature of people - they want to be different, they want to own things for themselves and they want to work on their own things. So if communism will be on the level of state, it will have to force people into it, that will lead to totalism and totalism to total decay and bankruptcy. That is atleast how it does sound to me - after all the discussions here and after all the thinking. EDIT: But in China - how they do it? They control their people somehow, don't they? Read a book. Learn the difference between a political system and an economic system.

You can read any of several thousand articles by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Forbes Magazine, USA Today, CNN, NPR News, PBS, Reuters, Associated Press News, London Financial Times and several hundred other news outlets. I deliberately did not provide the links because I did not want to get into the "liberal press" arguments which inevitably follow links to news reports.

By that measure, a child born inside American borders is a citizen so long as their mother has a valid visa. Even a ten day vacation visa. Now, some truthes. Trump cannot change; or override by fait, the Constitution. To get around that, Trump wants Congress to REWRITE the 14th Amendment Trump stated he wants to limit Native Soil birth rights to ONLY those who are born in the US and whose parents (plural) are citizens. Trump commented that it would be good to 'change' the14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and "fix" the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He even expressed his admiration for the Supreme Courts 1857 Dred Scott decision, which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause was specifically written to invalidate. Trump stated he wants to 'change' the equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment to make it easier to incarcerate and prosecute "immigrants and other undesirables". Trump has also expressed a desire to 'change' or delete the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment so that '"immigrants and other undesirables" can be summarily incarcerated and held indefinitely without trial or hearing. Any statement that the only thing Trump wants to change in the 14th Amendment is the 'Citizenship Clause" is self serving, delusional or an "alternate fact". And Trump doesn't want to stop with the 14th Amendment. Trump has expressed his desire to make changes to, or simply eliminate, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 19th, 22nd and 24th Amendments. Trump has also stated that the Constitution (the document he took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend") "needs to be fixed, it's old". The Constitution and it's Amendments are not the problem. I would LOVE to see some proof of the rest of your claims....... But, all that aside, this is pretty much a dead issue. not a squeak about it in quite some time. Towards the end of the reign of Southern Slaveholders, one Dred Scott sued his owner to be recognized as a free citizen. A lower Federal Court held for Scott, as he was living in a Free State. The Supreme Court overturned the Lower court and in their decision, denied Citizenship to all slaves, freed or not. Following the end of the Southern Insurrection to preserve slavery and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, several southern states passed laws restricting the vote to Whites only. They also passed laws which required freed slaves to repay the war debts incurred by the several states which formed the Confederated States. For the purposes of the Census, ex slaves where only counted as 3/5th a person, or less. and in some places were not counted at all. All of this was in an attempt to limit or eliminate the representation of freed slaves in government. Several states which comprised the Confederated States were flooding the Federal government with elected officials which had been prominent officers and elected officials in the Confederated Government and Military. These people were not happy with the end results of their insurrection and attempted to continue that conflict in the halls of Congress. Thus, Congress passed and the states ratified the 14th Amendment. Amendment XIV Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section one specifically nullifies the Supreme Courts Decision in the Dred Scott case and gives Citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants as native born citizens. It is this clause that contains the native birthplace language which Trump is denigrating and says he wants eliminated. But, Section one also contains the "equal protection" clause that provides all citizens the same legal protections. This is the section that Trump et al really want to eliminate. They will tell you it is about immigrants and refugees, but in truth, Trump is after the Equal Protection Clause. Without that clause it would de much easier to put people he doesn't like in prison, without trial, hearing or conviction. Reporters would probably be the first people to disappear into into the for-profit prisons run by Trump supporters. And before the tar and feathers are unpacked, Let me run down the list. Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Trump has expressed a desire to eliminate the "freedom of the Press" and "freedom of Speech" clauses from the 1st Amendment. Trump wants free reign to silence the critics which continually point at his lies. Part of the strategy is to cut out the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment so his critics can be imprisoned. Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Trump has expressed his wish to curtail or eliminate the protections against 'unreasonable search and seizure" in the 4th Amendment. Trump has complained loudly that the government is not allowed to summarily enter establishments and randomly seize any persons they suspect of being an' illegal immigrant'. Trump stated that the requirement to get a warrant only serves to warn the immigrants that the raid was coming and shouldn't be a requirement. Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. At one of his rallies, Trump ranted that he had to give 'illegal immigrants' and 'asylum seekers' a chance to be heard in a court. He wanted the "due process of law" clause eliminated from the 5th Amendment so he could hold 'immigrants' in prison (a for-profit prison) indefinitely without ever showing them the inside of a court room. Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 9th Amendment is being used by several States to justify their creation of "sanctuary laws" which prohibit law enforcement from questioning those who report crimes about their immigration status. Trump is furious that these states "have been allowed to hide behind the Constitution and protect illegal immigrants". He wants the 9th Amendment eliminated. The 9th Amendment was a consideration during the Supreme Courts' decision in Roe v Wade. Rights not defined by the Constitution but retained by the people are not to be limited, which includes medical decisions. Trump has lamented the Roe V Wade decision and the 9th Amendments role in that decision. Trump expressed his desire to eliminate the protections in the 9th Amendment. Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The 10th Amendment is being used by several States to justify their creation of "sanctuary laws" which prohibit law enforcement from questioning those who report crimes about their immigration status. Trump is furious that these states "have been allowed to hide behind the Constitution and protect illegal immigrants". He wants the 10th Amendment eliminated. Amendment XV Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Trump claims that the 15th Amendment is being used to give voting rights to 'illegal immigrants' (a claim for which he has supplied no evidence). He wants the 15th Amendment repealed "to stop voter fraud". Amendment XIXThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This Amendment was passed in response to the Supreme Court Case Minor v. Happersett (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162). That Supreme Courts decision struck down a clause in the Constitution of the State of Missouri which limited voting rights to men only. The majority opinion of the court also upheld the "native birth" clause of the 14th Amendment and included ALL persons born in the US. Trump doesn't give a damn about women's votes. What he dislikes and wants eliminated is the "native birth" definitions contained in the decision, and the 19th Amendment is based off that Court decision. Amendment XXII Section 1.No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Section 2.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. If the reason that Trump has lead the drive to repeal the 22nd Amendment isn't immediately obvious, you do not belong in this discussion. Amendment XXIV Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 24th Amendment was written specifically to eliminate the Voter Registration restriction which required the payment of property taxes and the payment of a additional "poll tax" to register to vote in eleven southern States. The 24th Amendment is the only Amendment written to specifically address a voter suppression in the 'Jim Crow South". Trump is claiming that the application of this Amendment is permitting 'illegal immigrants' to commit voter fraud and register to vote, so it should be overturned. HeyYou, I hope that this answers your questions. I further hope that others will recognize the current effort to take away some of our Constitutional freedoms.

I do not wish to diminish you experience and you have my sympathies. However, I agree with you and think you might be too close to the question to be objective. How about your too distant from the experience of what its like to live under a communist state to even know what your talking about. Seems far more probable compared to someone who has actually lived under a communist state twice in their lives. The perfect example of an emotional argument versus an intellectual discussion. And you are an example of how you miss the obvious and merely deflect the obvious point as a defense mechanism. Right. So this was just bait and switch. You weren't really apologetic, you were just waiting for someone to agree with you so you could turn on them. Stupid me, I thought you were being honest and introspective.

I do not wish to diminish you experience and you have my sympathies. However, I agree with you and think you might be too close to the question to be objective. How about your too distant from the experience of what its like to live under a communist state to even know what your talking about. Seems far more probable compared to someone who has actually lived under a communist state twice in their lives. The perfect example of an emotional argument versus an intellectual discussion.

Our schools seem to have issues with figuring out just what the 'truth' is...... and it varies from school to school. For the most part though, they like to call it 'socialism', not communism, as that has less negative connotations....... And you are correct, the folks espousing communism/socialism as a 'better way of life', have never lived in a communist/socialist country...... The school I went to, and every book I have ever read states quite clearly that communism and socialism are different. Socialism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism - a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed And socialism is worse than communism, as socialism (by definition) puts the power and control over resources into the hands of a central authority. Communism puts the control of resources into the hands of the community. And like the majority of the uninformed and poorly educated, you are using the word "communism" for what is actually "authoritarianism communism" or socialism.

I do not wish to diminish you experience and you have my sympathies. However, I agree with you and think you might be too close to the question to be objective. Communism is an economic and social theory and not a political theory. Communism is based on the Marxian principle, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Several groups have formed successful communes in the Americans, Europe, the Middle East and Australia, all which practice a communal or communist lifestyle. Just look as some other words related to communism; communal, community, commune, common, commonality. Or the phrase "We the people" from the preamble to The Constitution of The United States of America, a communal phrase, a communist phrase. What you describe are authoritarian governments which claim to follow a communist economic strategy but which forces its citizenship to live under certain non-communist behavior patterns. The premise of "authoritarian communism" is that everything everyone produces belongs to the state. Thus, everyone works for the state and is subject to the whims of the state. The State controls both the means of production and the producers. In this political system, producers are used as expendable cogs in the machine of government and creates the symptoms you so eloquently describe. By definition, "authoritarian communism" is not communism at all, but socialism. And the implementation of socialism by the Soviet Union and Russia was a very brutal form of socialism. In reality, it is not 'communism' which is the bad word. The bad word is 'authoritarian'. 'Communism', as used today; is just a linguistic shortcut for "Authoritarian Communism" which was introduced following WWII and propagated by the likes of Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt for "Communist sympathizers".

You're right. Deny other human beings their humanity, simply because they are different. It's okay to let them die on our doorstep, they're different. It's okay to return them to be killed by their government, they're different. It's okay to summarily put them in prison without trial, they're different. It's okay to take their children from them, they're different. Sounds eerily familiar. It's okay to put them in prison camps, they're different. It's okay to take their property, they're different. It's okay to kill them, they're different. So please tell me, how is what you are saying we are doing, any different from what their own government is doing? Do you think being held in a federal facility is all fun and games? Should we just let in anyone that wants to come here, without finding out WHY they are coming here? Do you think it would be wise to just open our borders to anyone?? Most of those 'refugees' are passing thru several other countries on their way here. Why don't they stay in one of THOSE countries? They are better than what they left behind. (supposedly) Maybe they wanna come here because of all the free handouts the democrats think we should give them...... Why work hard for a living, and barely make it, when you can come here, and get free housing, free food, free health care, and even some spending money?? A standard of living FAR superior to what they left behind, and all for free. What's not to like??? And you wonder why we are some 22 TRILLION dollars in debt?? I don't...... Those entitlements make up better than 25% of the TOTAL federal budget. Have a look at the chart Here. Please note the SPIKE in immigration starting in about 1975...... Now, how long do you think current policy is sustainable? Shouldn't america before for americans FIRST??? Shouldn't we address our own issues with homeless, and lack of affordable healthcare for our citizens FIRST? Why should we put these johnny-come-latelys ahead of citizens? Let's see. What happened in the early 1970s. Oh, I remember, Tricky Dick declared a "War on Drugs" and sent armed troops into Central and South America. And that invasion from the north sparked 'tribal' infighting to keep control of the drug manufacturing sources. Imagine that, The United States precipitated the crisis that started the refugees fleeing north. And we have continued pumping money and equipment into Central and Southern America for the last forty five years. Maybe, just maybe now, the United States has a responsibility to those who were, and are, directly impacted by the actions of the United States. Or are you saying the United States should write off the victims of their war on drugs as collateral damage and pretend they don't exist? In spite of your hyperbole, nobody is putting the refugees above American citizens. And according to the commitments the United States made in 1954. we are not supposed to treat refugees as subhuman either. But what Trump is doing with his policies is treating refugees as subhumans who can be tortured, imprisoned, starved and denied their basic human rights just for seeking asylum. And what you are doing by your comments justifying Trump's mistreatment of refugees is to further dehumanize the victims of a true human tragedy. And that is abhorrent. Quite frankly, I would rather befriend a thousand refugees than one United States citizen who would participate in the deliberate dehumanization of even one other human being, especially when their reason is "they're different, they're not like us". But alas, that "they're different, they're not like us" logic is quite popular. It put into power the greatest Fascist regime ever to exist. And the way things are progressing, Trump and his sycophant ideologues might just succeed in creating another. And with that, I am done with this discussion. I am out of pearls for casting. Leaving? Good. The veiled insults, (poorly, at that) and holier-than-thou attitude get old pretty quick. I would also point out that the various countries we are getting 'refugees' from are not due to just the war on drugs. Those countries have issues all their own, that have been ongoing for decades. I would point out that the cartel wars in Mexico are far more violent than other contributors to our 'refugee crisis', yet most of them are NOT Mexicans. Would you care to explain that? Oh, that's right, you just drop your insults and run. You also seem to assume a great deal about me.... Most of which is an invention of your own mind. Please point out where I have ever so much as implied the 'they are different' justification? I don't recall reading anything about the current admin applying that either...... I also suspect that you toss insults to the current administration out there to justify your own position. The whole 'fascist' thing is fraught with innuendo, and is a convenient label to apply to an administration you simply don't like, even though the economy is doing well, (for the most part) and life in general seems to be improving. I will grant you the pres really isn't 'presidential', in the old-school definition of things, but, he is getting the job done. I don't agree with all of his actions, but, that applies to EVERY past administration as well. I also note that you didn't bother to address the financial impact of the sheer number of 'refugees' currently showing up on our doorstep. Here's an idea, if you think those folks are so much better than your fellow citizens, why don't you have them move in with you? You can support them on your own dime, not on my tax dollars. I would MUCH prefer my tax dollars go to supporting our veterans, and actual american citizens. Wouldn't that be novel? I did address it. But it seems you are so wrapped up in your personal little poor me pity party that you never bothered to read the posts. Now, you can whine and cry about my posts and my "veiled insults" all you want. Reality is that you cannot deal with a little truth and facts, especially when the facts contradict you ill informed opinions. As for "holier than thou", that is simply one consequence of using documented facts to contradict your "alternate facts" and baseless opinions. It is a sad truth, but science and documented facts have a distinctive liberal bias. As for Fascism, there is a plaque in the Holocaust Museum that lists the warning signs of Fascism. Trump and his sycophants (including you, from what I read) tick every box. Written for legibility, and a photo of the plaque. Now, take you tantrums and your self indulgent pity parade and get lost. I have no patience nor tolerance for petulant children, and your last post clearly demonstrates you to be one. Wow. We went from veiled insults, and holier than though, to straight up insults, and arrogance. That's a nice combination. I also see that you are firmly instilled with the democrat creed. So that means that any argument that disagrees with yours, is obviously a lie, or based on 'alternate facts', or, you seek to disparage the character of your opponent. Congrats, you tick every box. Welcome to my ignore list. :smile: I have to deal with too many folks that have inflated opinions of themselves on a daily basis, I really don't need it here. You most certainly fall into that category. I have no use for egotistical narcissists, so, Goodbye. I understand why any statement that points out your ignorance and fallacies is considered an insult. Pointing at your falsehoods is a very practical demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you make stuff up to justify your opinion. You eschew reality in favor of your delusions. You don't need an egotistical narcissist? But you support the one in the White House. Hypocrisy? Ignorance? Delusion? Denial? All of the above? I must thank you however, as you reminded me of this quote by Isaac Asimov. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Newsweek, 21 January 1980 And there you are, an anti-intellectual. Intelligence is arrogance. Facts are insults. Pointing at falsehoods means one possesses an over inflated opinion of oneself. Disagreement means one is an egotistical narcissist. It is good to finally understand that you are an adherent of Big Brother. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - George Orwell, 1984 If you are a sample of an average American, god help us all.

You're right. Deny other human beings their humanity, simply because they are different. It's okay to let them die on our doorstep, they're different. It's okay to return them to be killed by their government, they're different. It's okay to summarily put them in prison without trial, they're different. It's okay to take their children from them, they're different. Sounds eerily familiar. It's okay to put them in prison camps, they're different. It's okay to take their property, they're different. It's okay to kill them, they're different. So please tell me, how is what you are saying we are doing, any different from what their own government is doing? Do you think being held in a federal facility is all fun and games? Should we just let in anyone that wants to come here, without finding out WHY they are coming here? Do you think it would be wise to just open our borders to anyone?? Most of those 'refugees' are passing thru several other countries on their way here. Why don't they stay in one of THOSE countries? They are better than what they left behind. (supposedly) Maybe they wanna come here because of all the free handouts the democrats think we should give them...... Why work hard for a living, and barely make it, when you can come here, and get free housing, free food, free health care, and even some spending money?? A standard of living FAR superior to what they left behind, and all for free. What's not to like??? And you wonder why we are some 22 TRILLION dollars in debt?? I don't...... Those entitlements make up better than 25% of the TOTAL federal budget. Have a look at the chart Here. Please note the SPIKE in immigration starting in about 1975...... Now, how long do you think current policy is sustainable? Shouldn't america before for americans FIRST??? Shouldn't we address our own issues with homeless, and lack of affordable healthcare for our citizens FIRST? Why should we put these johnny-come-latelys ahead of citizens? Let's see. What happened in the early 1970s. Oh, I remember, Tricky Dick declared a "War on Drugs" and sent armed troops into Central and South America. And that invasion from the north sparked 'tribal' infighting to keep control of the drug manufacturing sources. Imagine that, The United States precipitated the crisis that started the refugees fleeing north. And we have continued pumping money and equipment into Central and Southern America for the last forty five years. Maybe, just maybe now, the United States has a responsibility to those who were, and are, directly impacted by the actions of the United States. Or are you saying the United States should write off the victims of their war on drugs as collateral damage and pretend they don't exist? In spite of your hyperbole, nobody is putting the refugees above American citizens. And according to the commitments the United States made in 1954. we are not supposed to treat refugees as subhuman either. But what Trump is doing with his policies is treating refugees as subhumans who can be tortured, imprisoned, starved and denied their basic human rights just for seeking asylum. And what you are doing by your comments justifying Trump's mistreatment of refugees is to further dehumanize the victims of a true human tragedy. And that is abhorrent. Quite frankly, I would rather befriend a thousand refugees than one United States citizen who would participate in the deliberate dehumanization of even one other human being, especially when their reason is "they're different, they're not like us". But alas, that "they're different, they're not like us" logic is quite popular. It put into power the greatest Fascist regime ever to exist. And the way things are progressing, Trump and his sycophant ideologues might just succeed in creating another. And with that, I am done with this discussion. I am out of pearls for casting. Leaving? Good. The veiled insults, (poorly, at that) and holier-than-thou attitude get old pretty quick. I would also point out that the various countries we are getting 'refugees' from are not due to just the war on drugs. Those countries have issues all their own, that have been ongoing for decades. I would point out that the cartel wars in Mexico are far more violent than other contributors to our 'refugee crisis', yet most of them are NOT Mexicans. Would you care to explain that? Oh, that's right, you just drop your insults and run. You also seem to assume a great deal about me.... Most of which is an invention of your own mind. Please point out where I have ever so much as implied the 'they are different' justification? I don't recall reading anything about the current admin applying that either...... I also suspect that you toss insults to the current administration out there to justify your own position. The whole 'fascist' thing is fraught with innuendo, and is a convenient label to apply to an administration you simply don't like, even though the economy is doing well, (for the most part) and life in general seems to be improving. I will grant you the pres really isn't 'presidential', in the old-school definition of things, but, he is getting the job done. I don't agree with all of his actions, but, that applies to EVERY past administration as well. I also note that you didn't bother to address the financial impact of the sheer number of 'refugees' currently showing up on our doorstep. Here's an idea, if you think those folks are so much better than your fellow citizens, why don't you have them move in with you? You can support them on your own dime, not on my tax dollars. I would MUCH prefer my tax dollars go to supporting our veterans, and actual american citizens. Wouldn't that be novel? I did address it. But it seems you are so wrapped up in your personal little poor me pity party that you never bothered to read the posts. Now, you can whine and cry about my posts and my "veiled insults" all you want. Reality is that you cannot deal with a little truth and facts, especially when the facts contradict you ill informed opinions. As for "holier than thou", that is simply one consequence of using documented facts to contradict your "alternate facts" and baseless opinions. It is a sad truth, but science and documented facts have a distinctive liberal bias. As for Fascism, there is a plaque in the Holocaust Museum that lists the warning signs of Fascism. Trump and his sycophants (including you, from what I read) tick every box. Written for legibility, and a photo of the plaque. Now, take you tantrums and your self indulgent pity parade and get lost. I have no patience nor tolerance for petulant children, and your last post clearly demonstrates you to be one.

You're right. Deny other human beings their humanity, simply because they are different. It's okay to let them die on our doorstep, they're different. It's okay to return them to be killed by their government, they're different. It's okay to summarily put them in prison without trial, they're different. It's okay to take their children from them, they're different. Sounds eerily familiar. It's okay to put them in prison camps, they're different. It's okay to take their property, they're different. It's okay to kill them, they're different. So please tell me, how is what you are saying we are doing, any different from what their own government is doing? Do you think being held in a federal facility is all fun and games? Should we just let in anyone that wants to come here, without finding out WHY they are coming here? Do you think it would be wise to just open our borders to anyone?? Most of those 'refugees' are passing thru several other countries on their way here. Why don't they stay in one of THOSE countries? They are better than what they left behind. (supposedly) Maybe they wanna come here because of all the free handouts the democrats think we should give them...... Why work hard for a living, and barely make it, when you can come here, and get free housing, free food, free health care, and even some spending money?? A standard of living FAR superior to what they left behind, and all for free. What's not to like??? And you wonder why we are some 22 TRILLION dollars in debt?? I don't...... Those entitlements make up better than 25% of the TOTAL federal budget. Have a look at the chart Here. Please note the SPIKE in immigration starting in about 1975...... Now, how long do you think current policy is sustainable? Shouldn't america before for americans FIRST??? Shouldn't we address our own issues with homeless, and lack of affordable healthcare for our citizens FIRST? Why should we put these johnny-come-latelys ahead of citizens? Let's see. What happened in the early 1970s. Oh, I remember, Tricky Dick declared a "War on Drugs" and sent armed troops into Central and South America. And that invasion from the north sparked 'tribal' infighting to keep control of the drug manufacturing sources. Imagine that, The United States precipitated the crisis that started the refugees fleeing north. And we have continued pumping money and equipment into Central and Southern America for the last forty five years. Maybe, just maybe now, the United States has a responsibility to those who were, and are, directly impacted by the actions of the United States. Or are you saying the United States should write off the victims of their war on drugs as collateral damage and pretend they don't exist? In spite of your hyperbole, nobody is putting the refugees above American citizens. And according to the commitments the United States made in 1954. we are not supposed to treat refugees as subhuman either. But what Trump is doing with his policies is treating refugees as subhumans who can be tortured, imprisoned, starved and denied their basic human rights just for seeking asylum. And what you are doing by your comments justifying Trump's mistreatment of refugees is to further dehumanize the victims of a true human tragedy. And that is abhorrent. Quite frankly, I would rather befriend a thousand refugees than one United States citizen who would participate in the deliberate dehumanization of even one other human being, especially when their reason is "they're different, they're not like us". But alas, that "they're different, they're not like us" logic is quite popular. It put into power the greatest Fascist regime ever to exist. And the way things are progressing, Trump and his sycophant ideologues might just succeed in creating another. And with that, I am done with this discussion. I am out of pearls for casting.

You're right. Deny other human beings their humanity, simply because they are different. It's okay to let them die on our doorstep, they're different. It's okay to return them to be killed by their government, they're different. It's okay to summarily put them in prison without trial, they're different. It's okay to take their children from them, they're different. Sounds eerily familiar. It's okay to put them in prison camps, they're different. It's okay to take their property, they're different. It's okay to kill them, they're different.

Refugees? Perhaps. They may call themselves that, but, what are they running from? A third world country, with a corrupt government? Gee, plenty of those around. (plenty of FIRST world countries with corrupt governments as well) Some of them may have a legitimate beef, but, on average, 4500 of them PER DAY?????? That MAKES it a national security issue. We simply don't have the facilities/staff/ability to hold and process that many folks. We don't even have the ability to warehouse them while they are waiting to be processed. But, according to you, we MUST accept them???? I think that is a treaty we need to pull out of as well. It is NOT our problem that their country of origin sucks. WE don't make it that way. Them leaving isn't going to change anything. Why don't THEY FIX THEIR OWN COUNTRY? WOW!! That's like 1,642,500 people a year. But wait, Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there were less then 0.5 million refugees arriving at Americas southern border in 2017. And the average per year over the ten year period 2008 to 2017 has been just a bit over 0.5 million. Your number is like three times higher than the government is reporting. According to the Homeland Security, FBI National Crimes Statistics for 2018, refugees commit almost 80% less crimes than the overall American Average. Those arriving at the southern border may indeed call themselves refugees. But so does the UN. Those migrating to the southern border of the United States were classified as refugees by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. UNHCR describes the situations causing these folks to flee their homeland a "humanitarian crisis". Finally, the only real National Security Risk posed by refugees from Central and Southern America is to the national melanin level. There refugees are described as a National Security Risk simply because they are contributing to the what Russ Limbaugh called "the browning of America". Edit - despite your histrionics, they cannot fix their country any more than we can fix ours. Our country is documented to be a racist nation and all the intelligence, hard work and scientific evidence of the non-influene of melanin will not change the fact that Americans are generally racist. I would love to fix that.

According to the international law I referenced earlier (the 1951 Convention on Refugees), there are no 'illegal immigrants' at America's southern border, only refugees. But labeling refugees as 'illegal immigrants' gives them the air of criminals, which is exactly the desired effect. It is okay to keep criminals from entering your country, but is is much harder to keep fleeing refugees out. Denying fleeing refugees entry to your country gives a country the aspect of Switzerland, England, Spain and America in the 1940's when they refused admission to hundreds of thousands of fleeing Jews and forced them to return to Germany and that regime. And that is exactly why the 1951 Convention on Refugees was written and ratified, to bind countries to ethical treatment of refugees. So why is America now ignoring it's early commitment to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and abandoning it's commitment to the ethical treatment of refugees? Is it that these refugees do not bring enough wealth with them to bribe their way to respectability? Or is it perchance that they were not adequately educated in their dirt-floor school house? Or could it simply be that these refugees are not Europeans, but are instead Central and Southern Americas? What ever the reason, American needs to stop criminalizing being a refugee and start living up to the International treaty they ratified in 1954. Edit - Why did America deny admission to these thousands of Jews? National Security. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/ Now refugees from Central and Southern America are a threat to National Security. The more things change ...

“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once". - Robert A. Heinlein "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do". - Robert A. Heinlein

I want to clarify for further discussion. I have to admit I didn't read all of your bullet points. It was the initial premise I gleaned you said ,,, about removal of dead fetal tissue . Nobody cares about that as far as I know. It is not even a point of law , except mutilating a dead body. But that would be crazy to invoke that point of law here. I like your point of view black swany And since the thread I told you ... am glad you came back since our initial meeting. Got deleted . Just want to say ... I am glad you came back to post. I like your point of view. And it is needed here imho. You condescending attitude is noted. And you have continued your behavior of taking information and data out of context and attributing your own interpretation to both the isolated comment, and the entirety of the comment. Had you even bothered to read the entirety of the post, you would have gleaned that I was describing a medical procedure and not a legality or point of law. You have again demonstrated that getting the whole picture and dealing in facts in not your stock in trade. Your use of childish appellations is indicative of your attempts to illicit argument and deliberate confrontation and not precipitate an intellectual discourse which deals in facts and realities. As I said before, find someone else to play your infantile game. I have no patience for you or your deliberate attempts to provoke argument.

Folks have been working on preventing 'unwanted pregnancies' as long as I can remember, in all reality, likely far longer...... And we still see pretty much a consistent number of abortions per year. From that bit of information, I can draw the conclusion that what we are doing, and have been doing for generations, ISN'T WORKING. Teaching abstinence as the ONLY thing in whatever sex education classes you get in school is just stupid. It OBVIOUSLY doesn't work, but, we can do something different? Apparently not..... And that one, I lay right at the feet of the religious right. And given THAT bit of information, I don't see anything changing any time soon. Women have been dealing with birth control, unwanted pregnancies and abortion since prehistory. https://www.motherearthliving.com/health-and-wellness/herbal-morning-after-pills

As a human being that cares about humanity, I find that the Left and Right are both extremist organizations. Both Left and Right have reached the point where they are more concerned about disparaging, denigrating, shouting down, silencing and marginalizing their opposite than any thing else. Both the Left and Right have completely forgotten about the concerns of the overwhelming mass of humanity which exists between their extremes.