It's it amazing? The tolerance inbalance of the liberal-leftistsin society?

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Lenin had foreseen that he would need to order/promote mass killings,
including genocides, in order to impose communism which was symbolized by his
newly created hammer and sickle.

That's a wacky assumption. But neither history nor logic are exactly
your strong points.

No, that is borne out by history. The violence of Communism did not begin with
Stalin.

John Savard

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Lenin had foreseen that he would need to order/promote mass killings,
including genocides, in order to impose communism which was symbolized by his
newly created hammer and sickle.

That's a wacky assumption. But neither history nor logic are exactly
your strong points.

No, that is borne out by history. The violence of Communism did not begin with
Stalin.

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

There is nothing inherently violent about the communism that inspired
the Russian Revolution.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:27:55 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Lenin had foreseen that he would need to order/promote mass killings,
including genocides, in order to impose communism which was symbolized by his
newly created hammer and sickle.

That's a wacky assumption. But neither history nor logic are exactly
your strong points.

No, that is borne out by history. The violence of Communism did not begin with
Stalin.

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

It's not, "fundamentally," about violence, you moron. It's about
human rights.

There is nothing inherently violent about the communism that inspired
the Russian Revolution.

That's your opinion, dumbass. Communism tries to impose mass slavery
on humans, usually by violent means.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:47:14 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

It's not, "fundamentally," about violence, you moron. It's about
human rights.

Non sequitur.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:58:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:47:14 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

It's not, "fundamentally," about violence, you moron. It's about
human rights.

Non sequitur.

Nonsense. It certainly follows.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:58:38 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:47:14 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

It's not, "fundamentally," about violence, you moron. It's about
human rights.

Non sequitur.

Since I introduced 'non sequitur' a number of years ago via a very specific technical issue which constitutes the major advancement and attempted destruction of Western civilization in terms of retrograde resolution, it seems a number of participants here have fallen in love with the term.

The correct statement is that as the Earth overtakes the outer planets they temporarily fallen behind in view which the geocentric astronomers called retrograde motion -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


An astronomical and technical non sequitur and an assault on the eyes is this -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

In case people don't know what a non sequitur is, they can match the actual time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in the APOD website above and then judge Newton's dumb statement in that context.

The stupid empiricists never understood what Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion was by way of his dumb approach to retrogrades.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:58:38 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:47:14 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution. You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

It's not, "fundamentally," about violence, you moron. It's about
human rights.

Non sequitur.

Since I introduced 'non sequitur' a number of years ago
via a very specific technical issue which constitutes

I speak Latin, you dumbass. It's my third language. The term, "non
sequitur," has been around longer than you have.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 10:27:59 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:26:59 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Lenin had foreseen that he would need to order/promote mass killings,
including genocides, in order to impose communism which was symbolized by his
newly created hammer and sickle.

That's a wacky assumption. But neither history nor logic are exactly
your strong points.

No, that is borne out by history. The violence of Communism did not begin with
Stalin.

Do not confuse the violence of Communism with the violence of
revolution.

The communists go right on being violent after their revolutions, maybe even more so.

You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

I'll leave that ridiculous argument to you. The American Revolution had everything to do with independence, and nothing to do with any radical change in the economic system. The Russian revolution was about replacing a monarchy with something far worse.

There is nothing inherently violent about the communism that inspired
the Russian Revolution.

Inevitably, the communists must use violence and murder to squash dissent. Many people rightfully refuse to go along with communism and end up being murdered. Others are eliminated as a matter of convenience, still others by government mismanagement of food crops.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:39:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

I'll leave that ridiculous argument to you. The American Revolution had everything to do with independence, and nothing to do with any radical change in the economic system. The Russian revolution was about replacing a monarchy with something far worse.

No, the Russian revolution was about replacing an extremely cruel
system with something much better. That it failed to do so is
irrelevant to what drove it.

There is nothing inherently violent about the communism that inspired
the Russian Revolution.

Inevitably, the communists must use violence and murder to squash dissent.

Nonsense, but I'd expect nothing different from a dogmatist such as
yourself.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:42:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:39:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You could as well argue that American democracy is
fundamentally about violence.

I'll leave that ridiculous argument to you. The American Revolution had
everything to do with independence, and nothing to do with any radical change
in the economic system. The Russian revolution was about replacing a
monarchy with something far worse.

No, the Russian revolution was about replacing an extremely cruel
system with something much better. That it failed to do so is
irrelevant to what drove it.

First the monarchy was overthrown, THEN the Bolsheviks crashed the party.

They had planned for violence all along. It was inevitable.

There is nothing inherently violent about the communism that inspired
the Russian Revolution.

Inevitably, the communists must use violence and murder to squash dissent.

Nonsense, but I'd expect nothing different from a dogmatist such as
yourself.

It seems you need to educate yourself. Have someone read this to you:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/02/...lent-politics/