And you said the two sides were white supremacists and BLM.
Good job at repeating. What a person you read earlier said... Fact is what I'm doing is laying out truth. This isn't theory. All you have to do is read history and study history. Not gender studies and race studies from the universities that want to brainwash you... And not PBS and NPR that want to push socialism. Actual going and researching history. That's what I have done and that's why I am saying what I'm saying. If you object to that... That's on you. You have drunk the Kool-Aid. You have accepted the narrative and everything you see is through a lens and through a narrative. You proved that when you saw in what I said, Trump saying there were good white supremacists. Any objective reader would say okay. This guy is saying Trump was not saying there were good white supremacists. But you saw something that was clearly written and came away from the opposite conclusion of what was clearly on the page. Because you see nothing except your biases. I don't know why you have them. I'm sorry that you have them. But I would recommend for your own health and well-being and happiness and contentment that you get rid of them. Do your own homework. Stop getting your information from MSNBC or CNN. And don't trust newsmax or Fox either... Go do your own homework. Dig deep. Read The documents. Read the transcripts. Listen to the interviews in full. Listen to liberal interviews and listen to conservative interviews. Do the work and then come to a conclusion. Don't just repeat talking points from the Democrat party.
Who’s a liberal commentator that you trust?
I'm 45 years old... So yes... And by the way, I actually read Sarah Palin's book. The woman has a brilliant mind in spite of the fact that Tina Fey made a mockery of her and really plagiarized her look and sound until much of what Tina Faye said was put on Sarah Palin.
Frankly, at this point, I don't trust any liberal commentator... They have all been caught in too many lies. What I do is listen to what's being said and at least get the narrative that they're trying to push and actually pay attention to whether or not some valid information might be in there. But I don't trust any liberal commentator because they start with the philosophy that the end justifies the means. Don't start with the philosophy that truth is absolute and that you don't get to compromise on that. They believe that so long as what they believe is social justice is served. They can do whatever they want or feel like they need to to meet that social justice standard. That's a problem.
So when you say to you listen to both sides, you don’t really. You exclusively listen to conservatives.
Do I personally believe the birth certificate was legit... Not really... Do I believe it matters.. no.
No, I actually listened to the liberals. The problem is when the liberals talk they keep exposing themselves and exposing their lies. But I at least try to digest what they're saying and where they're coming from.
You seem to believe that Barack Obama is a socialist. He’s not. Real socialists on the left consider both him and Joe Biden to be too much under the influence of wealthy donors.
Socialist hold that the end justifies the means so long as socialism is the outcome... They aren't stupid. They know it takes money to get to where they want to go. He's very much a socialist as is Joe Biden as is well most of the Democrat party. The difference is they actually know that they need the wealthy donors to create the disruptions and they need the money to pay the disruptors in order to create the chaos in order to get the end that they want, which is socialism. And this is in theory. This is actually part of what's taught in the whole school of thought that is known as Rhodes scholarship. Rhodes was a globalist socialist... Better described, probably as a communitarian. He spent a fortune and donated and put his entire wealth into training people propagate that belief system. That's what that school is. So yes, Obama was a socialist and still is. Even his mentor that he openly says was the guy who was his mentor was his trainer was his guy was an open communist and a socialist and said so in his books. So please don't pretend like you've done your homework if you're going to say he wasn't a socialist.
The man had never even held a real private sector job except for a short time where he worked at a law firm. In that short time that he worked at the law firm, later said that he felt like he was working for the enemy. The rest of his life has been working for the public sector, be at the University as a professor's assistant... He was never a constitutional law professor. He was a professor's assistant. And had a bunch of theories about the Constitution but every one of them was rooted openly in socialism and in globalism. He actually believes, as do the Clinton's, that the United Nations and their policies should trump the United States Constitution. That's terrifying. The man is a stone cold socialist.
Cecil Rhodes was a South African mining tycoon and a hard-core racist. He was neither a globalist, nor a socialist.
Why do you keep insisting that socialists cannot be rich or cannot be racist... Socialism uses race and uses ethnicity and wealth and differences and everything else. Whatever it can get its Hands-On to divide people. Socialist s. Hold a philosophy that the state not the individual is the most important factor in society. And socialism doesn't necessarily mean pure socialism... In fact, that's why I use the term communitarianism. Communitarianism is a blend of capitalist resources to fund socialist philosophy applied to governments and banking systems and religious systems and a global system. That was the philosophy he held and the dude used every bit of his wealth to invest in the propagating of his positions. Remember Obama was a Rhodes scholar. George Bush senior was a Rhodes scholar. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar... I think.... Don't quote me on that last part. Hold on a second
If you make up your own private definition of socialism, it’s easy to make it stand for anything you want.
No, I simply go by what Stalin and Karl Marx and the Communist China philosophy and what every communist and socialist nation in history has done and said about what their philosophy is. You're not going to get a good definition of socialism in your Google dictionary or whatever you're using anymore... Just like you're not going to get a great definition of communitarianism. There's too much bias toward socialism and communitarianism in those resources and they are not willing to expose what they believe in that way. Read Karl Marx. Read chairman Mao. Read the statements and beliefs of a Stalin or if Fidel Castro... Study what these socialists believed... Read Adolf Hitler, The leading member of the national socialist party in Germany, also known as the Nazis. I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm giving you the historical definition.
The early Christian church was socialist and many modern denominations follow the socialist teachings of Jesus.
I don't know where you get the idea that the early Christian church was socialist, but it was most definitely not socialist. They did not have everybody putting everything in one big pot and take as you need. That's not how it worked. That's not what the book of Acts says. What they did was as they felt lead. They would sell some land or whatever in order to help one another because they were being kicked out of their jobs and sometimes even their homes and their families for simply becoming Christians. So these Christians were helping each other by using their resources. But you still had people who had private property. We know this because Acts talks about this. We also know that there was no expectation that everything be given. Facts that's the basis of part of the thing with ananias and Sapphira. Peter says expressively while you had the land. Wasn't it yours to sell or keep.. And while you had the money wasn't yours to give whatever amount you wanted... But you're lying and saying you gave all of it to try to make yourself look good. So there was no socialism involved. Socialism has as its ultimate end, And this is coming directly from Karl Marx, an elimination of private property and private goods All together. In fact, Mark's goes so far as to say that marriage should not be exclusive and that children are the property of the community. That actually sounds a whole lot like some of things you're hearing from the liberal left.
The notion of Socialism isn't new and has been ascribed to many historical cultures........erroneously.
*chuckles*
