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.
If words have meanings we can put to bed the idea that Trevor Loudon isn't an expert.
He clearly is an expert by definition !!! Any claim he isn't is up hill and yet to be seen.
From Merriam; Expert:
having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience
one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
What training or experience does Mr Loudon have that qualifies him as an expert?
What special skills or knowledge does he possess?
What is the evidence that he has mastery of the subject of communism?
Useful idiots beating the wardrums of socialism want one thing, to see their fellow Americans suffer as much as they do. They cannot take responsibility for their own circumstances, these same people are blind they'll only worsen inequality but as long as they're not the only ones suffering, it doesn't matter, because of their feelings.
From Merriam; Expert:
having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience
one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
What training or experience does Mr Loudon have that qualifies him as an expert?
What special skills or knowledge does he possess?
What is the evidence that he has mastery of the subject of communism?
Saying I'm wrong isn't proof of the claim.
You only question his qualifications you don't disprove them ?
Any information given to you would be questioned as well and be lacking no doubt.
Perhaps you will point to some books and a documentary film made by yourself on the subject showing greater knowledge and experience. Please do and we can enter you as the expert here too. Failing to do that we can say he is more the expert than you.
If you want to disprove him as expert answer your own questions and share it with us. There are benefits to doing your own work and not assigning to someone else. You then become the expert on what you did.
Had you read the thread you would have seen the source offering Trevor Loudon as an expert discussed early on. If you don't want to accept him as expert that's fine. Everyone is free to do that and offer one of their own too.
Who do you have to offer that is an expert on Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress ?
Who do you have to offer that is an expert on Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress ?
The fact that you include Communists with Progressives as if they are part of the same ideological grouping tells us you almost nothing about the topic.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
Who do you have to offer that is an expert on Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
The fact that you include Communists with Progressives as if they are part of the same ideological grouping tells us you almost nothing about the topic.
But it does tell us a lot about phma's credibility. The very fact that he puts Communists and Progressives in the same box - as one necessarily mean the other - tells me that phma is either woefully uneducated in even the most basic matters of world history or political science or this person has a vendetta against "liberals" - or maybe this person's just screwing around for their own entertainment. Any way you look at it, his conflation of Progressives and Communists makes me even less inclined than before to take anything this person says seriously.
The leftist brigade here at CD never wants to have an honest discussion about how they were brainwashed, and how this division in our politics, by the Soviet subversion that did indeed happen throughout the 20th century, that resulted in this current warped views from them.
The results of that are happening right before our eyes.
The Soviets FAILED, but here we are wallowing in the MESS they LEFT behind.
For me, this video does almost nothing. It is from 1984 and belongs there or 1967. Or 1934.
In 1984 Reagan gets re-elected. Making 6 of 9 Presidential elections going for the Republicans. Is that what Soviet subversion and immediate collapse looks like?
Republicans have won 4 of 8 since.
You could probably say the Beatles and rock n roll in general has had more impact on American beliefs than the Soviets ever did.
Well, with the exception of impact of allowing a permanent huge military and hyperactive "intelligence" apparatus for the right and the rich to use as tools in anti-communism campaign / consolidation of greater corporate power.
Actual communism is long dead in this country and pulling it out of its grave to make some point about liberals shows the speaker to be an actual **tard. But then again, before it died, "communism" in the mouths of the Right was a catch-all for things they didn't like, i.e. Russia, economic reform, civil rights, etc.
For me, this video does almost nothing. It is from 1984 and belongs there or 1969. Or 1939.
In 1984 Reagan gets re-elected. Making 6 of 9 Presidential elections going for the Republicans. Is that what Soviet subversion and immediate collapse looks like?
Republicans have won 4 of 8 since.
You could probably say the Beatles and rock n roll in general has had more impact on American beliefs than the Soviets ever did.
So you admit that you don't posses any critical thinking enough to see that a century worth of subversion should be ignored, and the American left's love affair with Marxism, is just home grown from scratch.
Ok. I doubt you even watched the whole Besmenov video. It is obvious how much damage they did, and you'd have to be a blind partisan not to see it.
I watched 2/3rds of the boring video. I have a meeting to get to. But I'll try to watch the rest later. His country rose up from 1984 and 1989 to at least take a pretty good first whack at Soviet control.
Where did a century of Soviet subversion get us? A smaller state and social saftey net than any 1st world country. Less labor rights or power than almost any major country. More rights, freedom and power for the capital class than most places.
By 1984 the amount of Marxists and Marxist literature you could find in US was down about 80-95% from its peak. I don't think it ever will return. The left of today is mostly social democracy. A few zealots trying to imagine revolution.
Re-watched the full video and continue to say it didn't really impress me. I studied about marxism and communism quite a bit in the 70s and early 80s. It was a part of understanding the world. It became less of a concern to me after that.
If you say that anything that changed from the 19th century (or 18th century) was because of Marxism, you might be about half right. But the underlying human conditions / needs / motives that Marxism attempted to address were what gave Marxism power and probably would have existed anyway and pushed for the same changes by some other theory. For the most part those motives were satisfied in the west by other means, by trade unionism and democracy. Only in places where these moderate means could not succeed were they achieved or attempted to be achieved by revolt and state change.
It is the reactionaries that tried to completely hold onto the world of the 18th / 19th century that they ruled that provided the basis for Marxism and Communism to have their "day" (or about 70 years) in the sun. Attempting to wipe out each and almost every political, economic or social reform in the 18th / 19th centuries built up fuel for the 20th century "fire". That fire burned large some places. The fire was often captured and control by some who cared more about power than the people. Marxism and Communism became its own worst advertisement. In the west, that fire never managed to burn that bright, with most rejecting the leadership of the Marxist or Communist, who were too "other" and did not gain adequate trust.
If there is another "half" of credit for 20th century change in the west it probably should be given to the democratic process... and to part of the wealthy / corporate elite who either cared about their countrymen some and / or saw the need (and had the ability to give it without hurting their accumulation of wealth that much) to give a half loaf to dissipate the fuel for bigger change.
Last edited by NW Crow; 05-31-2019 at 02:27 PM..
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.
