Share Political Videos

Post Reply New Topic

Unless you respond the posted content, we will not had a "serious discussion." You have failed to do that. I remember the previous conversation. All you said was, basically, that you did your research, and I found RT is "Russia propaganda." Not an argument!


Can you see why I'm frustrated? You have no debating skills!

I'd come down this way - with a name like Russia Today it's a tough sell that they have no interest in influencing US politics at some level. At the same time it's also true that they, and Jimmy Dore, are pointing to things that the New York Times wrote about New Knowledge and the like which is very difficult to say is being 'taken out of context'.

I think this is why any conversations about sources and motive-mongering are something of a dead end. Fox, RT, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, any of these may have hypotheses or make claims about things that are happening politically but they don't actually get all that interesting or plausible unless you can triangulate critical points of agreement in what's been said by news agencies who have a completely different agenda. It is a bit like the wild west right now and what we're all forced to do, or at least those who are willing, is try to analyze the facts like adults and try to handle contending viewpoints as adults similarly (ie. steel-man, don't straw-man).

Trump advocating shooting Hillary for trying to pass gun control.

We're living in McCarthyism 2.0. Yeah, it's hard to bring content from a source like Russia Today without being met with the usual "attack the source,, not the content" approach to debating. It's probably intentional, too. I know what I'm up against -- and maybe I'm trying to make a point. There's too much dismissing ideas based on a perceived political agenda. I could bring content from RT and Jimmy Dore, here, all day with witch I don't agree. I could bring articles from HuffPo and MSNBC with witch I agree. But by and large, the MSM is pretty locked down when it comes to delivering stories that ruffle the feathers of the oligarchs.

The worst part - it feels like western civilization and integrity is sitting in shambles right now. We're getting to where we can't make families and look after each other anymore nearly as well as we used to and what we have left is mostly floated on these bizarre financial abstractions of the sort where our best options tend to be go into federal debt indefinitely because it's the least unattractive of the alternatives and ride that wave hoping it never blows up under us.

You seem confused. Communism and dictatorship aren't mutually exclusive. You can have democratic communist societies like Rojava for example, and dictatorships aren't automatically fascist.

Can you point to the part of the video where Olly called for state sanctions?

That title is misleading. This is a good article on the history of marxist-leninist states. But marxism–leninism isn't the only form of communism that exists.

That and the 60+million people dead from the last time someone had the same idea.

Leninism-Stalinism? Whose promoting that?

No, I'm not confused. I laid it all out, i'll watch your next video tomorrow. Is there any communist society that actually worked out as designed? I've never heard of one. I did read it's easier to do in small communities, 350 million is hardly a small community.

When people enforce policy by acts of violence and seek dominate control over a society based on their beliefs and silence other viewpoints that conflict with their ideology, that is dictatorship. Whether power changes hands or not, the government as a whole will be the dictator. How can you vote for a person whom has been silenced. Funny how AspE's reply seems to fit well here.

"That and the 60+million people dead from the last time someone had the same idea." lol.

Yes, Rojava is a good example.


Large scale communism can be broken up into small autonomous units.

This is such a bad argument, it's comical.

I'll check into it eventually.

Explain how you wish to design a communist society that works in a manner where people's voices can be heard by freedom of speech.

Let me point out that Antifa's are attacking free speech. They are attacking free speech rally's, Trump voters, claiming they are all fascist regardless of whether it's true or not, the majority...not. Attacking innocent people is so f***ed up, seriously. That's the problem when people not capable of rationally thinking ideas out get together in the name of 'freedom' and incorrectly target people to beat down. What's going to happen is they are going to take it too far, they are getting confident in physically assaulting innocent people, the strong arm of the law is going to come crashing down on them and they are going to be labeled as a terrorist group, which is honestly a fair statement. The majority of people in the US have enough sense to not attack people to push ideologies. We talk, debate and vote rather than attack, Antifa type people are a very small portion of the country. Many people migrated here specifically to escape socialist countries. And there are a group of people wanting to leap all the way to communism, good luck on that one. I'm willing to bet an overwhelming majority of the US is very anti-communism.

From the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 until 2017, demographers have estimated that self-styled communist governments have collectively claimed the lives of more than 68 million people through starvation, political purges, extrajudicial killings, forced labor camps, and violently implemented social engineering policies.

Do you know how many people capitalism has killed?

This is a loaded question. How are you defining freedom of speech?

I'm not a free speech absolutist. I'm okay with de-platforming fascists.