BullBuchanan

So, they "deserved it" then?

I guess some fascists don't think they're bad people after all

People shot on porch: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/minneapolis-police-national-guard-paintball-shooting-porch-a9541016.html Police Shooting First responders (I have plenty more): https://www.kut.org/post/they-shot-all-us-austin-medic-recalls-weekend-police-violence-amid-peaceful-protests Feds abducting people without warrant, crime, or explanation on "suspicion of crimes": https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland Police attack australian journalists; More journalists attacked: Police intentionally aiming to kill with "less lethal" munitions: https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-teen-hospitalized-with-head-injury-after-police-shoot-him-with-bean-bags-at-protest "The lead medic with Austin Street Medics immediately ran up to the front to go to this boy, and she put her hands up, she did the cross in front of her face. That was the sign, like, 'Hey, I'm a medic.' She has her medic shirt on. She has all her stuff showing that says she's a medic, and they shot her," Brake said. "They shot her in the hands that she was using to protect her face."" Don't pull your back trying to defend this.

It's almost like it happens in stages and you don't just wake up after a coup no one saw coming and now you live in a one party authoritarian regime.

Not to me. To me it's a symptom of disease. If that threat goes away nothing is solved. We're still living under a fascist regime.

So what do you call it when police march down neighborhood streets shooting people on their porch, abduct citizens without warrants or cause, deny people of their right to protest, physically assault and arrest the press and shoot first responders? What exactly do you think a fascist police state is? I mean really, what do you think is missing?

Are you saying that you're ok with literal fascism, or you don't agree on the definition of fascism. Because anyone that knows the definition of fascism is saying that's literally what is happening under this regime. We are living under authoritarian rule in a police state.

I support workers, and believe that this country belongs to the people and not the 1% of the 1% who claim it for themselves. I Believe this country is made better by unions, collective bargaining, pensions, and healthcare. Who do you support?

Is that not possible?

And? I'm not sure what a "trained marxist" is supposed to be. Did she take a test?

Seems a lot of people missed that. Scary stuff. Although it's quite amazing how many non-satirical posts followed thereafter in agreement.

We already went over this on page 19 where you suggested you can't be a family if there isn't a father present. Based on your limited worldview it's no surprise that you also have a twisted view of "marxism".

There are many people in this thread. like you, that are intentionally misquoting a sentence to make it fit your claims, yes.

I never understood these type of complaints. Scroll on by man.

I provided you an answer for this numerous times. Why do you keep asking? They are analogous to any other group of people with a shared mission/beliefs 2A Supporters, "Patriots", Pride, Pro-choice, Pro-life, etc. Antifa's cause is fighting fascists. To help you understand there are also many small organized groups that do have leadership that may decide to attend rallies or protests under an Antifa banner. That doesn't make any one them "Antifa" they are all Antifa. The original formation of Antifa was the Antifaschistische Aktion, which was an official German Organization that fought the Nazis in Germany but that is drastically different than what it is today. Today it is merely a symbol that represent a common set of shared beliefs. Edit: For what it's worth, I likely would not have been very sympathetic the the Antifaschistische Aktion. While I am decidedly anti-fascist, I am also not a Stalinist. However, I don't need to align with everything in a name's past to agree with its present and vice-versa. For instance, in a Teddy Roosevelt led USA, I would very much be aligned with Republicans, back when they were a progressive party. Teddy Roosevelt was practically the Bernie Sanders of his era. That started to shift with FDR, but the dixiecrats still had control when they forced FDR to abandon Henry Wallace as his VP in favor of someone more sympathetic to southern causes who could be manipulated in Harry Truman. It's one of the great untold travesties of our political history. History is complicated, and as I already mentioned, much of it shades of gray.

The bucs have struggled to find a consistent back since the earliest of Doug martin's career. Shady could do well there if he isn't used up.

A conference-only schedule might result in the best year of SEC ball ever. Alabama won't be able to get away with playing no one until the championship.

Yup. But also just because Marx believed socialism was a transformative state to communism doesn't mean that it must be so. In addition, economies are not required to exist in a pure ideology. There are many countries, namely African nations that embrace capitalism far more than we do in America. The concept of strong trade unions is also a central socialist principle. You can be politically socialist and advocate for workers owning more share of the means of production without the abolition of private enterprise or a free market. There are no absolutes and everything exists on a scale. Asking folks to have nuanced conversations can sometimes be a tall order today. Incorrect. "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement" "Requirement" is the operative word. It's not my opinion - it's how sentences and words work.

Also, you didn't answer my question about socialism. Do you not believe that you can be a socialist and have a nuclear family? I don't think you understand what socialism is, and just use it as a slur. Yes I do.

Read it again, you didn't understand it. It's explicitly stated that nuclear families are not a requirement. They are one of many valid options. You follow turning point? That makes so much sense. They have trouble with reading too. That's why they use pictures.

There's data that suggest people whose grandparents live with them are more likely to be poor, abuse drugs and alcohol etc.? What about those raised by two sets of parents?

False.

Several people above who claimed that the only family was a nuclear family.

Unless they were raised by their grandparents or a set of divorced parents though, right?

Are there not "whackos" in nuclear families? Are there not abusers and child molesters?