Communist Party Goals of 1963

Bull. Aside from it being a terrible comparison in the first place - one being a political system and the other an economic one - I would really like you to show me the tens of millions lined up and killed for their belief in or opposition to capitalism. I can certainly show you the tens of millions that were killed for their opposition to communism.

The Obama still has 2 1/2 years left in office.

They're both economic systems. A very large part of the 500 million sourced by the Black Book of Communism (where that figure comes from) are those who died in famines judged to be caused by "communism". It would be very easy to do the same for capitalism. And there are innumerable wars that one can add up the death tolls from too.

I had to edit that a little. You're pretty fast.

Best Troll a Commie Thread ever!

The deaths that are attributed to communism are directly caused by economic mismanagement and those were easily identifiable political mismanagement outrages. Those figures are easily available because there's no dispute over what stupidity caused them. Apparently there's quite a lot of dispute over the things you're saying about capitalism because you and the few remaining collectivists left who've survived the Stalinist-style purges and starvation caused by their mismanagement are the only ones who believe that nonsense.

There's quite a lot of dispute in both directions actually. Argumentum ad populum is fallacious in any event.

Grow, pyramid, grow!

DD&B is fun but doesn't get the job done. But if you must, who are the people that I'm appealing to here, anyway? Get your Latin straight if your going to use it.

You appealed to popularity, the number of people who happen to agree with you, not to any particular person. "Argumentum ad populum" is the correct Latin term for that as far as I am aware.

Maybe he used Rense Translator.

That's nice.

Now, what about proving those 45 goals wrong?

Appeal to ignorance; shifting the burden of proof.

No. I didn't appeal to popularity. You must've misunderstood, but I didn't. Nowhere did I say that I must be right because of all the people that agree with me. I was correcting you on your assertion that, because there were some people that agreed with you, then your point-of-view must be equally valid. I did, however, dispute the quality of your backers. That's not an appeal to popularity. That's an appeal to sanity and logic.

Relevant part highlighted. Point out where I made such an assertion.

You made the assertion that I was using a particular style of argument. I showed where you were wrong. Now you're DD&B'ing. I have no obligation to prove anything else.

You do have an obligation to answer the points made in the topic and, if you can't do that, at least provide the proof you say you have of your assertions.

You "showed me where I was wrong" by making a false statement that you're now refusing to substansiate.

Maud Dib's list? That's beyond risible.

Can't dispute it, huh?

And a communist would break your glass, cut your throat, and steal everything you own.

TRIM YOUR MOTHERFUCKING QUOTES, ASSHOLES!!

WHAT MOTHERFUCKING QUOTES ASSHOLES?

What's funny is that he actually put in a size 8 text when the drop down only goes to 7.

I noticed that.

It doesn't go to 11?

So... when the denouncing cries from left field going to wax poetic over the goals mentioned in Post 1 instead of whining about the sources?

Skin wonders if you attack the source because you are unequipped to dispute the source's claim.

First of all: You can try to dismiss criticism of the OP as "whining about the sources," but nobody has presented any evidence that those were actually the 1963 Communist Party's goals. They come from a book called "The Naked Communist" by someone who was not a member of the Communist party, and might well have been attracted to the idea of adding ideas he disagreed with to the list for the sake of tarring them as "communist."

That said, some of the items Muad bolded are ones that only the right-wing lunatic fringe would believe have actually happened.

Let's start with "3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength." When was the last time you heard any mainstream voice seriously advocate this position -- outside of straw man fantasies, that is?

"15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States." Again, this may come as a surprise to the people who scream "socialism!" every time the government spends money on something that doesn't benefit them personally, but neither of our major political parties espouse anything even remotely similar to a real Communist agenda.

"17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks." Again, those living in right-wing wacko la la land probably believe this has happened, but evidence is scant.

"18. Gain control of all student newspapers." Oh, really?

"20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions." Um. Right.

Ditto for 21 and 22.

"24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press." Sure, that's happened. Tell that to every TV station that's been fined by the FCC for something that got the Parents Television Council's panties in a bunch.

And so on.

Meanwhile, some of the things that have indisputably happened -- such as the return of the Panama Canal and the recognition of mainland China -- are difficult to draw any real significance from.

Basically, the whole thing -- from the supposed "goals" themselves, to the list of which ones have supposedly been reached, to the assumed significance of some of those things happening -- is a load of horse hockey.

(Rightforge negs)
Oh yeah...well...you're made of ka-ka!!
Yeeaaaah ka-ka!
Yeeah...kaaa-kaaaa!

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

It's a blog about his life. Tellingly... it is empty.

There. Now that's how you attack the source, kids.