Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, this is not true. As funny as it seems to us now, the Irish were not considered white when they first started coming to America in the 1800's. In fact books, not unlike the Bell Curve, were written to explain using junk science why the Irish were not white.
Italians weren't considered white, either, nor were European Jews or south Slavs. They were referred to as "colored". It was only in the 1920's that people from these ethnic groups started winning the right in court to the rights held by white Americans. Amazing, isn't it?
This is liberal revisionism nonsense. People of Irish ancestry were coming to America way before then. Of course Irish and other Europeans were considered white. And of course people didn't want a bunch of poor and outcast coming in white or not.
No. You are now laughably clueless. That definition is not Communism. Its Socialism. Communism and Socialism have collectivist principles because property is common....however...
Communism has no concept of the distribution of goods or its administration. Its fundamental principle is that there is no private property and one in need acquires what they need. An authority does not decide what you need. Its initiated by the one in need. Communism is "you go get it" and socialism is "here is what you get".
Both of them fall under collectivism but they are mutually exclusive in that category.
So you said its not a dog but an animal.
Yeah and you said blather....
Hitler and Stalin, whatever political label people want to slap on them, they were both dictators, the left is fine with dictators, the Constitutional Conservatism is as antithetical to dictatorships as you can get.
Actually, this is not true. As funny as it seems to us now, the Irish were not considered white when they first started coming to America in the 1800's. In fact books, not unlike the Bell Curve, were written to explain using junk science why the Irish were not white.
Italians weren't considered white, either, nor were European Jews or south Slavs. They were referred to as "colored". It was only in the 1920's that people from these ethnic groups started winning the right in court to the rights held by white Americans. Amazing, isn't it?
And even before that, Ben Franklin wrote that Germans weren't white, because language was considered part of whiteness, and if you weren't a native English speaker you weren't white.
And even before that, Ben Franklin wrote that Germans weren't white, because language was considered part of whiteness, and if you weren't a native English speaker you weren't white.
German and Dutch were coming to America in the 1600s. The English Puritans actually departed 1620 from living in the Netherlands because they were oppressed by the English King for their Christians congregation beliefs. You don't under western and American history and why and what happened, you just revise and demonize it. That's want anti-white liberals do.
Most likely Franklin meant was if you don't assimilate fully then you are an outsider.
German and Dutch were coming to America in the 1600s. The English Puritans actually departed 1620 from living in the Netherlands because they were oppressed by the English King for their Christians congregation beliefs. You don't under western and American history and why and what happened, you just revise and demonize it. That's want anti-white liberals do.
Germans weren't regarded as white, because they didn't speak English, and weren't under the rule of the Crown.
But then, this paralleled thinking in Europe, even later. When Rudyard Kipling wrote much later of "lesser breeds without the law", he wasn't talking about Asians or Africans...
MY definition of socialism was from YOUR link. Did you read your entire link? Or not?
MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET IT RIGHT. As for arrogance and ignorance, here's looking at you, baby!
Sorry buddy, you can writhe as much as you like on the hook .
Your statements:
Socialism promotes the workers owning the means of production, so leftist.
Communism and socialism are not the same thing.
Socialism is the belief that the means of production should belong to the workers/community.
The distinguishing characteristic of socialism is state ownership of property, and central planning, when the state is democratically created. Its only relation to communism is the collectivist idea of property to the exclusion of private ownership. .
None of your babblings suggest any comprehension of either concept as distinguished from the other.
But then, this paralleled thinking in Europe, even later. When Rudyard Kipling wrote much later of "lesser breeds without the law", he wasn't talking about Asians or Africans...
This one poked at the Irish. "One Element that Won't Mix"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
