Ex-NBA star Charles Barkley calls Conservatives "fake Christians" and vows to run for Governer of Alabama in 2014 when he's met the state residency requirement.
That's Hhhutzpah! Go Charles
27 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Anti christian bigotry,
the left can't get enough of it.
Meanwhile, daring to suggest that honor killings is a bad thing is shouted down as "islamaphobic".
Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt.
It's amazing how many false assertions can be packed into one short comment:
"Anti christian bigotry"
First off, it's false Christianity that's being denounced. Just read the New Testament (for the first time, I imagine), especially the part where Jesus condemns the hypocrites and thows the money-changers out of the Temple. Also, look up something called "the 10 commandments."
"the left can't get enough of it."
The Left (and anyone who's sensible) would dearly love not to have to deal with this irrationality any longer.
"Meanwhile, daring to suggest that honor killings is a bad thing is shouted down as "islamaphobic"
Who's ever done that? Right...no one. Just because you wingnuts call every crime involving beige people or people with vaguely beige-ish names sharia-compliant behaviour does not mean that's true.
"Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt."
Actually, this is true. Goldberg's thesis is just as insane as the wingnut's understanding of the Left and reality in general.
yeah tiggy they were all purchased in bulk by the one, and only one, conservative out there: 'biff'.
I hear 'biff' also voted millions of times for Harper last election (he used several million fake ID's, and got around the country using Santa's sleigh.)
Anti-Christian bigotry? He was defending Christianity.
"Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt."
Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini - it's a great thesis. And if you know less history than the average grade 5 student(and I know you do) there's a chance you might even believe it. By the way, anony, when are you going to forward your address so I can send you those receipts, ya lying chickenshit?
Looks like ti-guy caught you lying again, anony. I don't think he's sold as many as L.Ron Hubbard yet, but if he can get there, his book will be as true as Dianetics!
Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini - it's a great thesis.
I believe Goldberg makes language shifts when he deals with challenges like this. He'll state that this only strengthens his point and assert that the Nazis, by identifying a root problem and dealing with it were being progressive...just like today's progressives!
...he then rises a meter in the air on a cloud of methane.
The book itself isn't the problem; it's the sheer number of people who desperately need to take it seriously.
yeah tiggy they were all purchased in bulk by the one, and only one, conservative out there: 'biff'.
Again...You're not seriously making the argument that a ridiculous thesis is rendered more credible just by the number of times it's repeated, are you?
they controlled speech "for the good of the people",
to name two biggies.
That's what's so hilarious about BCL using a small fringe Nazi party to make his points. If that group ever got into power (which is purely theorhetical as it comprises a few people in a Scarborough basement) they would be in perfect alignment with BCL and the need to control "incorrect" speech.
It's just that the definition of "incorrect" would change.
Today's left has significant fascist tendancies. They just think (as all other fascist regimes since time immemorial) that the manner in which our speech should be controlled really IS for the good of the country.
That the left is currently aligning themselves with the radical Islamists.....well that just a case of birds of a fascist feather flocking together.
"Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini ."
The so-called left in Germany ,for the most part, easily made the switch to National Socialism after 1933. Goebbels liked to brag that the most ardent Nazis were former Communists. As for Spain, I suppose. Those same leftists (Trotskyites, Stalinists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc) who spent more effort and resources fighting each other than they did Franco.
And North Korea is Democratic. It's in their official name even.
"e so-called left in Germany ,for the most part, easily made the switch to National Socialism after 1933. Goebbels liked to brag that the most ardent Nazis were former Communists."
Goebbels. Now there's a credible source. But, if the Nazi 's were socialists why would he describe them as former communists? Fascism is socialism, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and, as biff is trying so hard to demonstrate, ignorance is strength.
"Right, so they weren't really opposed to Franco at all. In fact they supported him. "
That's the conclusion you came to buttwipe. The problem with you lefist troglodytes is a gross inability to reason and argue a point without resorting to childish and ineffective distortions. Here's so that even a simpleton like you, who obviously has never read a serious book on the Spanish Civil war, can understand. The left in Spain was never really able to put together a united fighting front and this was one of the contributing factors of Franco's victory. Care to dispute this? This a report from the socialist worker corresponent in 1936.
"The disunity of method, organisation and object of the Spanish workers are important from another point of view. We may readily grant, with Marx, that workers seeking democracy have an interest in striving, as well as the capitalists, to overthrow military, Monarchical or autocratic Government, but Marx certainly never envisaged a situation in which not only were the workers' groups bitterly hostile to each other, but many of them (in Spain possibly a majority) are not aiming at democracy at all, having no inclination for it. Should the Communists or Trotskyites gain power they would, as in Russia, promptly and ruthlessly suppress democracy, and along with it the Labourites, Syndicalists and Anarchists. The latter two groups, whatever Government is in power, will continue to do their utmost by strikes, sabotage, and even assassination, to destroy it, even at the cost of producing chaos."
Ti-Dhimmi or Ti-Dimwit, You really are like Sgt.Schultz in Hogan's Heroes who used to say, "I see nothing, I know nothing." The Commies in the Weimar Republic were under almost complete Soviet control. As such they espoused militaristic organization,collectivism, violence, the leader-cult and contempt for individual liberties and civil rights. The main differences between them and the NSDAP were the issues of race and state control of the means of production. They fought each other but Stalin thought that a Nazi regime was preferable to Weimar and would be a stepping stone a socialist revolution. Care to dispute any of this? A sizeable percentage of the Brownshirts(SA) were ex-commies. Up until the Roehm putsch in 1935 there was doubt as to which way the Nazis would turn. Many still believed in the Socialist part of NSDAP. Here's an excellent article on the similarties between these two groups.
"The left in Spain was never really able to put together a united fighting front and this was one of the contributing factors of Franco's victory."
Therefore, the left, supported Franco. How does that make any sense? The left was FIGHTING FRANCO, you imbicile. The issue of their effectiveness is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I'm sorry, but googling or reading some hack's 2nd rate propaganda is no substitute for a real education.
Let me explain this again to you peabrain. My lord are you ever dense. That's your conclusion and not mine. Because I said that the left were disunited does not infer that they supported Franco.
"The issue of their effectiveness is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. "
Irrelevant to what? To the final outcome in the fight against Franco? Your logic and reasoning are at the level of the unibrow mouthbreathers.
27 comments:
Anti christian bigotry,
the left can't get enough of it.
Meanwhile, daring to suggest that honor killings is a bad thing is shouted down as "islamaphobic".
Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt.
A
It's amazing how many false assertions can be packed into one short comment:
"Anti christian bigotry"
First off, it's false Christianity that's being denounced. Just read the New Testament (for the first time, I imagine), especially the part where Jesus condemns the hypocrites and thows the money-changers out of the Temple. Also, look up something called "the 10 commandments."
"the left can't get enough of it."
The Left (and anyone who's sensible) would dearly love not to have to deal with this irrationality any longer.
"Meanwhile, daring to suggest that honor killings is a bad thing is shouted down as "islamaphobic"
Who's ever done that? Right...no one. Just because you wingnuts call every crime involving beige people or people with vaguely beige-ish names sharia-compliant behaviour does not mean that's true.
"Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt."
Actually, this is true. Goldberg's thesis is just as insane as the wingnut's understanding of the Left and reality in general.
Now, stop lying, get smarter, or shut up.
Gandhi once said:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
I always liked that quote.
Barkley for Governor: Anything less would be uncivilized
Goldgerg's book is a fascinating read. It's no wonder it's on the NYtimes bestsellers list.
In hindsight his conclusions seem self evident, but it is insightful nevertheless.
Goldgerg's book is a fascinating read. It's no wonder it's on the NYtimes bestsellers list.
What's the first word on page 41?
Hehe,
it's sold enough copies to be on the NYT best seller list,
yet tiggy here just can't come to grips with the fact that even one person has read it.
Now THAT'S a cocoon!
it's sold enough copies to be on the NYT best seller list,
Bulk purchases for wingnut swag.
You're not seriously making the argument that a ridiculous thesis is rendered more credible just by the number of times it's repeated, are you?
Because that's, y'know, dumb.
Heheh,
yeah tiggy they were all purchased in bulk by the one, and only one, conservative out there: 'biff'.
I hear 'biff' also voted millions of times for Harper last election (he used several million fake ID's, and got around the country using Santa's sleigh.)
tiggy's furry cocoon, looks comfy in there.
Anti-Christian bigotry? He was defending Christianity.
"Goldberg's highlighting the left's alignment with fascism couldn't be more apt."
Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini - it's a great thesis. And if you know less history than the average grade 5 student(and I know you do) there's a chance you might even believe it.
By the way, anony, when are you going to forward your address so I can send you those receipts, ya lying chickenshit?
Looks like ti-guy caught you lying again, anony.
I don't think he's sold as many as L.Ron Hubbard yet, but if he can get there, his book will be as true as Dianetics!
Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini - it's a great thesis.
I believe Goldberg makes language shifts when he deals with challenges like this. He'll state that this only strengthens his point and assert that the Nazis, by identifying a root problem and dealing with it were being progressive...just like today's progressives!
...he then rises a meter in the air on a cloud of methane.
The book itself isn't the problem; it's the sheer number of people who desperately need to take it seriously.
yeah tiggy they were all purchased in bulk by the one, and only one, conservative out there: 'biff'.
Again...You're not seriously making the argument that a ridiculous thesis is rendered more credible just by the number of times it's repeated, are you?
The Nazi party was a "socialist" party.
It's in their official name even.
They were into massive state control,
they controlled speech "for the good of the people",
to name two biggies.
That's what's so hilarious about BCL using a small fringe Nazi party to make his points. If that group ever got into power (which is purely theorhetical as it comprises a few people in a Scarborough basement) they would be in perfect alignment with BCL and the need to control "incorrect" speech.
It's just that the definition of "incorrect" would change.
Today's left has significant fascist tendancies. They just think (as all other fascist regimes since time immemorial) that the manner in which our speech should be controlled really IS for the good of the country.
That the left is currently aligning themselves with the radical Islamists.....well that just a case of birds of a fascist feather flocking together.
"Yeah aside from a few minor details -like the fact that "the left" were sent off to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, and the fact that it was "the left" that provided most of the opposition to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini ."
The so-called left in Germany ,for the most part, easily made the switch to National Socialism after 1933. Goebbels liked to brag that the most ardent Nazis were former Communists. As for Spain, I suppose. Those same leftists (Trotskyites, Stalinists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc) who spent more effort and resources fighting each other than they did Franco.
Makalu, your username is the same as one of the highest mountains in the world. Intentional?
The so-called left in Germany ,for the most part, easily made the switch to National Socialism after 1933.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion? And if true, and they were the "so-called" left, well, they weren't really the left.
Righties, it's not that you don't have an argument to make...it's just that you all sound so retarded when you attempt it.
Please stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. All the history you guys know of the Third Reich you learned watching Hogan's Heroes.
"The Nazi party was a "socialist" party.
It's in their official name even."
And North Korea is Democratic. It's in their official name even.
"e so-called left in Germany ,for the most part, easily made the switch to National Socialism after 1933. Goebbels liked to brag that the most ardent Nazis were former Communists."
Goebbels. Now there's a credible source. But, if the Nazi 's were socialists why would he describe them as former communists?
Fascism is socialism, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and, as biff is trying so hard to demonstrate, ignorance is strength.
Sir Charles, Govenor! It has a nice ring to it...
"Right, so they weren't really opposed to Franco at all. In fact they supported him. "
That's the conclusion you came to buttwipe. The problem with you lefist troglodytes is a gross inability to reason and argue a point without resorting to childish and ineffective distortions. Here's so that even a simpleton like you, who obviously has never read a serious book on the Spanish Civil war, can understand. The left in Spain was never really able to put together a united fighting front and this was one of the contributing factors of Franco's victory. Care to dispute this? This a report from the socialist worker corresponent in 1936.
"The disunity of method, organisation and object of the Spanish workers are important
from another point of view. We may readily grant, with Marx, that workers seeking
democracy have an interest in striving, as well as the capitalists, to overthrow
military, Monarchical or autocratic Government, but Marx certainly never envisaged a
situation in which not only were the workers' groups bitterly hostile to each other, but
many of them (in Spain possibly a majority) are not aiming at democracy at all,
having no inclination for it. Should the Communists or Trotskyites gain power they
would, as in Russia, promptly and ruthlessly suppress democracy, and along with it
the Labourites, Syndicalists and Anarchists. The latter two groups, whatever
Government is in power, will continue to do their utmost by strikes, sabotage, and
even assassination, to destroy it, even at the cost of producing chaos."
Ti-Dhimmi or Ti-Dimwit, You really are like Sgt.Schultz in Hogan's Heroes who used to say, "I see nothing, I know nothing."
The Commies in the Weimar Republic were under almost complete Soviet control. As such they espoused militaristic organization,collectivism, violence, the leader-cult and contempt for individual liberties and civil rights. The main differences between them and the NSDAP were the issues of race and state control of the means of production. They fought each other but Stalin thought that a Nazi regime was preferable to Weimar and would be a stepping stone a socialist revolution. Care to dispute any of this?
A sizeable percentage of the Brownshirts(SA) were ex-commies. Up until the Roehm putsch in 1935 there was doubt as to which way the Nazis would turn. Many still believed in the Socialist part of NSDAP. Here's an excellent article on the similarties between these two groups.
http://www.people.carleton.edu/~dprowe/FascBrown.html
"The left in Spain was never really able to put together a united fighting front and this was one of the contributing factors of Franco's victory."
Therefore, the left, supported Franco. How does that make any sense? The left was FIGHTING FRANCO, you imbicile. The issue of their effectiveness is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
I'm sorry, but googling or reading some hack's 2nd rate propaganda is no substitute for a real education.
How long after they disown Bush before they start crowing "Bush was a lefty!"
"Therefore, the left, supported Franco. "
Let me explain this again to you peabrain. My lord are you ever dense. That's your conclusion and not mine. Because I said that the left were disunited does not infer that they supported Franco.
"The issue of their effectiveness is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. "
Irrelevant to what? To the final outcome in the fight against Franco? Your logic and reasoning are at the level of the unibrow mouthbreathers.
"Irrelevant to what?"
The discussion, dipshit.
MAKALU
A dose of verbose.
signifying little.
A raging mouth,
with naught but spittle.
Wow. Good think Barkley got paid for playing ball with his hands, 'cause the brain just isn't there.
Post a Comment