• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

For Reader or Badaxe.

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Do either of you have any recomendations on books to check out at the library that will show that Marxism is not a contradictory Ideology to the Republic of the US of A, the Constitution and the beliefs and values that make living in the US great?

Obviously you both have read such books or have listened to the College lectures, that discount what you read on

http://www.basicsproject.org/american_fifth_column/goals/goals.htm

This mental discipline you speak of, they forgot to mention that at the more conservative college and University that I went to. Maybe they don't teach that at Agricultural and Business schools! (I will admit though, the University where I took Business was a little Capitalistic in their thinking)

Any pointers on becoming more mentally disciplined?, I hope it does not include signing onto a political discussion site and attacking others' intelligence.

There's more to learn from debating the facts, and not just emotionally based insults, don't you both agree.


OMG, Badaxemoo, that was priceless.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

You have way too much time on your hands hypocrit. You should really put that curiosity to better use like going to the local community college and taking history and anthropology and political science courses and getting some mental discipline.
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34458

Lots of interesting information on this site, it's a must read. Also interesting is the connection to the "Agents" they have listed and the current administration
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I always wondered if Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and the townspeople of Dodge City and Tombstone were thought of as "socialists" or "Marxists" by the "rightwingernuts" when they passed and enforced ordinances against packing firearms inside the town because of all the shootings that were occurring- or ordinances banning galloping on the city streets because citizens had been ran down, scared, and endangered..... :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You seem to agree with the website.

Those Earp boys needed to protect those citizens, from those that would try to take the freedoms and liberties that the US was founded on, by using their 2nd amendment to do it!

Jeez, you'd think that people would sit down and think about ways to protect those rights and freedoms, and not ways to destroy them.

You must have read the material on the website, you're getting the point of the "fifth column", or what an "enemy within" will do to reach their goals..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
You seem to agree with the website.

Those Earp boys needed to protect those citizens, from those that would try to take the freedoms and liberties that the US was founded on, by using their 2nd amendment to do it!

Jeez, you'd think that people would sit down and think about ways to protect those rights and freedoms, and not ways to destroy them.

You must have read the material on the website, you're getting the point of the "fifth column", or what an "enemy within" will do to reach their goals..

Yeh- but those were rules and regulations restricting a persons actions - and even touched upon regulating the 2nd amendment- all of which is thought of by rightwingernuts as untouchable...

Must be the reason Kansas and Arizona turned into such dens of liberals and socialists-eh :???: :p :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I thought you read the website, obviously I was wrong.

At the base, the American Fifth Column is not happy with the results of capitalism, otherwise known as economic freedom. While “fair,” the results of economic freedom are not “equal” for all.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
If those towns people had read the first part of the Second Ammendment, the part about a well regulated Militia, and actually formed a militia instead of cowering and having somebody with a badge try to protect them then everything would have been solved quite nicely. If people in that town were trained and organized, as they should be as an American duty, then they would be ready to counter these actions by these gangs/thugs. Yes, absolutely the citizens should take the law into their own hands at times like this. I honestly believe that we'll be reaching a time when citizens will have to rely on the gun they carry to protect themselves, their community and their family. There isn't going to be enough money to pay for the law enforcement needed to control the crime that we'll be seeing.

The system of government we are supposed to have is to be ruled by peoples law, natural law, God's law, whatever you want to call it. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" is not interpreted correctly, it's supposed to be "though shalt not commit murder". There really isn't a perfect translation from hebrew, but the point is that elsewhere in the bible, somebody please give me the book, chapter, verse if you know it, where it says that it's your duty to kill someone if need be to prevent that person from being murdered.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
I thought you read the website, obviously I was wrong.

At the base, the American Fifth Column is not happy with the results of capitalism, otherwise known as economic freedom. While “fair,” the results of economic freedom are not “equal” for all.

And heres a few quotes from a person that probably did more for regulating immoral capitalism- along with his battle for workers/consumers rights and moving the country into the 20th century than any other man....

Are you saying Teddy was Marxist- Socialist :???:

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt

"Our goal is to spread prosperity and see that prosperity is spread around."
~Theodore Roosevelt

Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.
But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.
~Theodore Roosevelt

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.
~Thoedore Roosevelt
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
" Our goal is to spread prosperity and see that prosperity is spread around."

How was Teddy going to "acquire" the prosperity that he was going to spread around? Was it via confiscation like Maobama?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
" Our goal is to spread prosperity and see that prosperity is spread around."

How was Teddy going to "acquire" the prosperity that he was going to spread around? Was it via confiscation like Maobama?

That was Teddy's answer to when he went in and began enforcing and passing antitrust laws against the monopolies, trusts, and "too big to fails" that were raping and pillaging the US consumers and the workers-- and breaking these Corporate entities up...
Kind of like the Bankers, Investment Firms, and AIG "too big to fail" corporations did now 100 years later since all regulation was either rescinded or went unenforced by the previous Administrations.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I'm not sure, we'll have to check with Reader and Badaxe, I think what they were trying to say was:

that the website was incorrect in grouping those individuals in the "the Fifth Column" definition of being "enemies within", due to their methods of using Marxist or communists ideologies for purposes that would be detrimental to the founding Fathers' ideologies.

We'll have to see what they took from the website that would make those of us, that feel and think that way, unintelligent and lacking mental discipline.

Examples of books and colleges that teach the opposite would be a great start.

They must of read a few that prove that to themselves, to be able to give the intelligent response they did!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Ben H said:
Teddy was a Progressive and Progressivism comes from the same batter as Facism.

Teddy was a facist?

I thought he was sort of a strange looking dude.

You'd think the last philosophy he would have ascribed to would have been facism.

Of course, standards of beauty were somewhat different around the turn of the 20th century, I suppose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
badaxemoo said:
Ben H said:
Teddy was a Progressive and Progressivism comes from the same batter as Facism.

Teddy was a facist?

I thought he was sort of a strange looking dude.

You'd think the last philosophy he would have ascribed to would have been facism.

Of course, standards of beauty were somewhat different around the turn of the 20th century, I suppose.

Well- if he was a fascist- maybe thats the kind of facism we need today....
He consistently is ranked by Historians as one of the top 5 Presidents ever- and usually is high on the ratings of the public surveys....

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy tend to score highly in popular opinion polls, but rank highly less often in polls of historians. The bottom ranks often include Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and James Buchanan.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
" Our goal is to spread prosperity and see that prosperity is spread around."

How was Teddy going to "acquire" the prosperity that he was going to spread around? Was it via confiscation like Maobama?

Everybody has the "fair" opportunity to attain that prosperity, but it will not be distributed "equal", sounds like competition.

Nope he doesn't qualify to be a member of those that will break a system of providing individual rights and freedoms, outlined by the founding fathers.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Are all Progressives fascist? I don't know, you tell me. They certainly orginate from the same thing. Look at history. Facism is not limited simply to the Nazi party who were also the socialist workers party, that is only one form. Was Nazi Germany the same thing as Italian Fascism? No, but they were both facist. Wilson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, all progressives.

For all those who actually have a brain and want to know the truth, read the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fasci...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240625531&sr=1-1
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Ben H said:
Teddy was a Progressive and Progressivism comes from the same batter as Facism.

Teddy was a facist?

I thought he was sort of a strange looking dude.

You'd think the last philosophy he would have ascribed to would have been facism.

Of course, standards of beauty were somewhat different around the turn of the 20th century, I suppose.

Not all Facists qualify for being members, but some Maoists do, go figure!

When you read the information on the website, did you believe that the author was saying all members were Marxists, Badaxe?

If so, You must have missed a page.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That kind of goes back to my original post- since Wyatt Earp and his brothers enforced gun laws- and laws and regulations putting restrictions on people- for the betterment of the community (the whole)- what would this current bunch of rightwingernuts label them :???: Does that make them socialists :???:
How about Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, etc. etc...What label for them :???:

One of the reasons many of those are thought to be top Presidents is they were progressive--and moved the country in a new direction...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
That kind of goes back to my original post- since Wyatt Earp and his brothers enforced gun laws- and laws and regulations putting restrictions on people- for the betterment of the community (the whole)- what would this current bunch of rightwingernuts label them :???: Does that make them socialists :???:
How about Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, etc. etc...What label for them :???:

One of the reasons many of those are thought to be top Presidents is they were progressive--and moved the country in a new direction...

All that means is that the Earp's laws were in violation of the Second Amendment.

I would certainly hesitate to group the progressives of yesteryear with the moonbats that call themselves progressives today. Do you think Washington, Lincoln, etc... were in favor of gay marriage, abortion, socialism, etc.....?
 
Top