California’s indoctrination of children reaches new lows

reply to post by Annee


No. In Canada the Liberal party has been hijacked by the NDP, who are the party in opposition right now. The NDP are socialist/communist. The progressive conservatives were amalgamated into the Conservative party, but in the time since then the progress made in progressive conservative times has been claimed as political victories that the socialists are now taking credit for.

The socialists in Canada are now using rhetoric that was liberal and progressive conservative, while never actually being liberal or progressive conservative.

This is the exact phenomena happening, right down to the name of the parties being Liberal and Progressive Conservative.

You can find someone lying anywhere - the greater consensus is available to those who look for it. Socialism can and does exist independent of democratic principles.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
I have been reading on political theory for 20 years. I'm sure you can cherry pick, and I encourage you to be more honest.

I don't think I am the one who is cherry picking.

How many definitions do you want. Just to satisfy that I was not incorrect, I spent an hour today looking through socialist political theory and practice. Mostly abstracts. Yesterday I spent 45 minutes looking through from the early 1900s to today to see how the definitions have been changing.

How many sources and definitions would you like?

I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. But to claim there is no opposing viewpoints?

Have you also searched for arguments and opposition to your studies?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
I have been reading on political theory for 20 years. I'm sure you can cherry pick, and I encourage you to be more honest.

I don't think I am the one who is cherry picking.

How many definitions do you want. Just to satisfy that I was not incorrect, I spent an hour today looking through socialist political theory and practice. Mostly abstracts. Yesterday I spent 45 minutes looking through from the early 1900s to today to see how the definitions have been changing.

How many sources and definitions would you like?

I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. But to claim there is no opposing viewpoints?

Have you also searched for arguments and opposition to your studies?

They are few and far between, and reject all previous definitions as they don't fit the model they are advocating for as a "new" socialism.

reply to post by Afterthought

Hi After

That is an interesting notion of yours ref: contaminants in the immediate human terran environment...

What would happen if, say, left handed people were found to be 'left handed' (i.e. abnormal with respect to the majority of modern terran homo-sapiens sapiens humans) because of chemical contaiminants in the air and in the water...?

I only mention this because (by definition) 'left handed people' (i.e. persons who consider themselves to be primarily left handed) are technically speaking 'not normal' - statistically - roughly ONLY 9% of the total terran human population, the rough equivalent to the percentage (=9%) of those persons within any general population who consider themsleves to be 'soley homosexual' - that is, in terms of their natural bent or 'inclination'....

Interestingly, roughly 28%- 30% of the 'general human population' (according to Hite and Kinsey etal. who actually bothered to do statistics in the US on these little matters) who consider themselves to be 'ambi-dexterous' (i.e. they use BOTH hands fairly equally, though generally with a slight or decided bent to one direction or another) could presumably correspond to the roughly 28-30% of the general population who 'sexually swing both ways[' i.e. bi-sexuals like 'king David' of 1 Samuel 20:30 or 2 Samuel chapter 1 (David's love paean to his boy-toy Jonathan) etal.

So...according to your Rule, wouldn't it be a hoot if we found out that left-handedness (which is technically an aberration among humans) was the result of slightly too much say, mercury in the drinking water?

However, since homosexuality and bi-sexuality have existed ever since terran homo-sapiens sapiens first crawled out of their caves (even male gorillas and doves and rams etc. do it to other males of their species !!) I would pause to jump to any modern chemical contaminents as to the actual cause (e.g. thhe extremely high leveels of e.g. oestrogen in the public drinking water system in the US - the result of 'sexually lax terran human females' constantly taking birth-control pills while sleeping around, then - well, 'making oestrogen laden contaminated urine' shooting' into the public sewer system... !)

So...should we FIX all those willfully left-handed people also for being different? I suppose poor Leonardo da Vinci would be in a LOSE LOSE situation if that ever happened (or as many breeders to-day would say, "Who Needs the Last Supper & Mona Lisa Anyway?) !!!

reply to post by Aeons


This is entirely true, as a Canadian I see it in our politics way too much.

Although Jack Layton had a wonderful idea for the NDP, moving it out of the whole socialist nationalist point of view and more into a progressive democracy, that's all in shambles after his passing.

One of the major parties, the Bloc Quebecois was squashed in the last election, not even enough seats to have a party leader.

Meanwhile the NDP and the Liberal party split the vote and caused our current dictator to remain in power that much longer.

We have no differing of opinions on most major issues in our country between parties. We simply pass the legislation along and argue about the really really superficial stuff.

~Keeper

ANNEE
I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. But to claim there is no opposing viewpoints?

Have you also searched for arguments and opposition to your studies?

Originally posted by Aeons
They are few and far between, and reject all previous definitions as they don't fit the model they are advocating for as a "new" socialism.

But they are . . .

. . . and the pendulum does swing.

I've sure witnessed that enough in my lifetime.