I'm agreeing with liberals more and more lately

[Shatna]

I vehemently disagree with this guy. We leftists are in fact vermin first and then scum! I won't stand for letting assholes like this smear and impugn the Movement!

 

[jack]

See the 'work" the the filthy homosexual communist, Herbert Marcuse, who is personally responsible for stool-pushing the disgusting hate-America concept of "multiculturalism

This is all I need to read of your ideology to realize that deep down inside, you are just a lonely ignorant hater, totally disconnected from reality.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

You've listed a few extremist ideologies, and I can understand how extremism can be a huge turnoff when it tramples over people who have done nothing wrong.

But what is wrong with collectivism? And I don't mean 100%, take your wheat, bullet in the back of your skull collectivism.

Don't you like social services?

I've never used one single penny of stolen tax money in "social services" in almost 50 years of existance, so NO, I do not like having money stolen from me to be redistributed to the indolent, the inferior and the unlucky.

Fuck them!

Why should I pay for some beaners kids' medical care or education? Why should I pay for some junky's rehabilitation? Why should I pay for some ghetto negro's apartment? Why should I pay for some codger's presription drugs? Why should I pay for your 'disability'?

 

[Hambil]

Why should I pay for the policy who keep those people from shooting you because you're a racist fuck?

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Try "corporate ideology is antithetical to the ideals upon which this nation was founded."

Facism is merely the natural extension of the corporation into state. Just ask Mussolini, the father of facism.

I can agree with you somewhat on this point. Corprotate/globalist moneypigs represent the fascistic melding of socialist ideology with ubercapitalist greed.

Leftists prize individual liberty highly. Particularly the anarcho-communist variety. Few anarchists prize individual liberty more than an anarcho-communist.

I see you've drunk the high-potency kool aid. Leftist "claim" to prize individual liberty when it comes to amoral behaviors, but when it comes to thought and philosophy, they are all surprisingly monolithic and utterly intolerant.

Is not property nothing less than the oppression of individual liberties?We know you hate the left, dearie.Aww, you hate gay people, women, and black people too.

By "property oppresses people" do you mean that if I have three dollars more than you, you are "oppressed" if I don't give you a buck fifty? Or is the state supposed to take two dollars from me, keep 50¢ and give you the other $1.50?

Hate, hate, hate, Gurk.Ascribing rights to groups of people?

And here we go with the patented "bludgeon" words. I'm supposed to back off my position and go on the defensive because you call me a "hater". I guess "racist" and "homophobe" can't be far behind.

Gurk, you're not talking about the civil rights movement. That was saying people had the same rights regardless of which group they were in. When you talk about granting rights to groups of people, you're talking about the legal recognition and treatment of corporations.

No, I'm talking about "Cultural Marxism". Look it up. Corporation have no more "rights" than do "homosexuals" or "one-eyed syphilitic dwarves".

Aww, you just love summary executions.If you think destruction and deconstruction are actually synonyms, I should buy you a dictionary.Gurk... who don't you hate?

Again with the "hate". What's with you leftist fairies and "hate". Am I not supposed to "hate" people who want to destroy everything I hold dear? It seems it's perfectly OK for you and your ilk to "hate" anyone opposed to your agendas. Why is that?

Sweeping away the pillars of capitalistic commerciallism isn't the same thing as killing you and destroying your country.

Yes, it is. If you had the wherewithall to actually research the work of the Frankfurt School (I did hint that you should, after all.) You might have learned by now that these neo-marxist scum theorized that it is western civilization itself that must be "deconstructed" (as in destroyed) in order for the socialist utopia to be realized. This is why marxist academics to this day are all high on "Critical Theory" as a means to "deconstruct" the traditions and values of western society that they deem to be impediments to their utopian dreams.

Although, incidentally, I have come to believe that the nation is outmoded ...

Of course you do.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

^^Told'ja he makes me look good.

You still haven't defined "good".

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

See the 'work" the the filthy homosexual communist, Herbert Marcuse, who is personally responsible for stool-pushing the disgusting hate-America concept of "multiculturalism

This is all I need to read of your ideology to realize that deep down inside, you are just a lonely ignorant hater, totally disconnected from reality.

Wassa matta, Jack? Marcuse one of your gay heroes?

How does pointing out that Marcuse was a vile homosexual pervert and an evil communist make me a "hater"? And how is relating these FACTS in any way "disconnected from reality"?

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Why should I pay for the policy who keep those people from shooting you because you're a racist fuck?

... and there's the "racist" tag from the gerbil-packing faggot.

 

[Blindgroping]

Do you guys EVER stop with the gay references?
Any psychologist would tell you that Freud is speaking through you.

 

[TJHairball]

I can agree with you somewhat on this point. Corprotate/globalist moneypigs represent the fascistic melding of socialist ideology with ubercapitalist greed.

Not exactly. Try just the melding of ubercapitalist greed with government.

I see you've drunk the high-potency kool aid. Leftist "claim" to prize individual liberty when it comes to amoral behaviors, but when it comes to thought and philosophy, they are all surprisingly monolithic and utterly intolerant.

"Monolithic," says the man. This from someone who thinks facism is a variety of socialism. If it looks monolithic to you, it's only because everything you disagree with gets lumped together in your head.

By "property oppresses people" do you mean that if I have three dollars more than you, you are "oppressed" if I don't give you a buck fifty? Or is the state supposed to take two dollars from me, keep 50¢ and give you the other $1.50?

Not at all.

Gurk, I'll ask you a question: What's the state of absolute personal liberty, and what defines it?

(I'll give you a hint: The first part of the answer starts with "A" and ends with "narchy.")

And here we go with the patented "bludgeon" words. I'm supposed to back off my position and go on the defensive because you call me a "hater". I guess "racist" and "homophobe" can't be far behind.

"Hate, hate, hate" = "bludgeon" words?

My, Gurk, for someone whose rants are about 50% insult by volume, you have a really thin skin.

No, I'm talking about "Cultural Marxism". Look it up. Corporation have no more "rights" than do "homosexuals" or "one-eyed syphilitic dwarves".

That's funny...

...because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the rights that individuals do. They are individuals, after all - each and every one. A corporation is a group, and therefore oughtn't have any rights unless you start ascribing rights to groups. Gurk, do you understand what an individual is, as opposed to a group? You seem to have it backwards in your ranting.

Again with the "hate". What's with you leftist fairies and "hate". Am I not supposed to "hate" people who want to destroy everything I hold dear? It seems it's perfectly OK for you and your ilk to "hate" anyone opposed to your agendas. Why is that?

Gurk, dearie... did I say I hated you?

Aww, did you just drop the soap in surprise? Bend over and pick it up, would you ...

Face it, Gurk. Summary executions on the basis of belief are about as much a violation of personal rights as you can come up with... and just the sort of thing the Founding Fathers detested.

Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Thirty Years' War?

Yes, it is. If you had the wherewithall to actually research the work of the Frankfurt School (I did hint that you should, after all.) You might have learned by now that these neo-marxist scum theorized that it is western civilization itself that must be "deconstructed" (as in destroyed)

Again with your confusion. Deconstruction is a very different thing from destruction, Gurk. You keep mixing the two up, and it's not helping you any.

in order for the socialist utopia to be realized. This is why marxist academics to this day are all high on "Critical Theory" as a means to "deconstruct" the traditions and values of western society that they deem to be impediments to their utopian dreams.

Gurk, Gurk, Gurk... how long is it going to take you to get a grip on what deconstruct means?

 

[Blindgroping]

don't care, not interested.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Gurk, I'll ask you a question: What's the state of absolute personal liberty, and what defines it?

(I'll give you a hint: The first part of the answer starts with "A" and ends with "narchy.")

Of course anarchy is the "absolute" state of personal liberty. But can you tell me the diference between "total anarchy" and "perfect anarchy"?

Believe it or not, hairbag, I went through an anarchist stage back in my university days. I had the goatee, the bandanna and fatigues, the black flag - the whole schmeer ... but then the drugs ran out, the hippie chick ran off and I graduated, so I shaved off the goatee and went out and got a job.

That's funny ... because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the (same) rights that individuals do. They are individuals, after all - each and every one. A corporation is a group, and therefore oughtn't have any rights unless you start ascribing rights to groups. Gurk, do you understand what an individual is, as opposed to a group? You seem to have it backwards in your ranting.

I know you're fixated upon the evil corporations, but let's stick with the marxist concept of Identity Group ideology for a moment. you said: " ... because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the (same) rights that individuals do.

Exactly so! There is not one single constitutionally enumerated or implied right that I have that any filthy homosexual pig, or one-eyed syphilitic dwarf, or black man or ugly feminist woman or legal-resident beaner does not also have.

... not a single one.

Yet we see libtard "useful idiots" talking about "gay rights", "black rights", "hispanic rights" and "womens rights" all the time. Why is that, do you think?

Face it, Gurk. Summary executions on the basis of belief are about as much a violation of personal rights as you can come up with... and just the sort of thing the Founding Fathers detested.

I have not said that anyone (except muslim scum) should be executed for their "beliefs". Rather, vermin scum leftist bugs should be executed for their "actions". For example: Dalton Trumbo should have been executed for conspiring with known Soviet operatives for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the United States and inciting "world socialist revolution". It was his "actions", not his "beliefs" that should have condemned Trumbo to the ignominious death of a traitor, just as the Rosenburgs were executed for their actions and not their beliefs.

Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Thirty Years' War?Again with your confusion. Deconstruction is a very different thing from destruction, Gurk. You keep mixing the two up, and it's not helping you any.Gurk, Gurk, Gurk... how long is it going to take you to get a grip on what deconstruct means?

You seem to like Wikipedia. Here, let me do your work for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

This is actually a very balanced overview of the vermin scum marxist bugs - and it talks about "deconstruction" in the context of the marxist imperative to destroy the social cohesion of western civilization.

It also mentions Jack's disgusting homosexual communist hero, Herbert Marcuse.

 

[Hambil]

... and there's the "racist" tag from the gerbil-packing faggot.

You can blame me if you want, since you're clearly mentally unstable and I don't want to upset you. But I believe the fault probably is in your own statement:

ghetto negro's apartment

 

[Shatna]

I'd give good money to find out this guy is KIRK1ADM.

 

[TJHairball]

Of course anarchy is the "absolute" state of personal liberty. But can you tell me the diference between "total anarchy" and "perfect anarchy"?

Believe it or not, hairbag, I went through an anarchist stage back in my university days. I had the goatee, the bandanna and fatigues, the black flag - the whole schmeer ... but then the drugs ran out, the hippie chick ran off and I graduated, so I shaved off the goatee and went out and got a job.

Now, what defines anarchy?

You can answer two ways. First, the lack of rules. Second, the ability of a person to do pretty much whatever they want.

Property laws are a codification of rules restricting people from doing things. It's pretty simply, Gurk. Property happens to be the largest restriction on personal liberty in place today.

I know you're fixated upon the evil corporations, but let's stick with the marxist concept of Identity Group ideology for a moment. you said: " ... because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the (same) rights that individuals do.

Exactly so! There is not one single constitutionally enumerated or implied right that I have that any filthy homosexual pig, or one-eyed syphilitic dwarf, or black man or ugly feminist woman or legal-resident beaner does not also have.

Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry.

... not a single one.

Yet we see libtard "useful idiots" talking about "gay rights", "black rights", "hispanic rights" and "womens rights" all the time. Why is that, do you think?

Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?

It's a very simple contention, Gurk - that certain groups of people are not being granted the same individual rights as other groups of people.

I have not said that anyone (except muslim scum) should be executed for their "beliefs".

Aww, Gurk, what a short memory you have.

ALL who adhere to collectivist ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism) should be lined up against a wall and summarily executed in my opinion.

"Adhering to a collectivist ideology" is having a belief. "Summary execution" is a form of execution.[/i

Rather, vermin scum leftist bugs should be executed for their "actions". For example: Dalton Trumbo should have been executed for conspiring with known Soviet operatives for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the United States and inciting "world socialist revolution". It was his "actions", not his "beliefs" that should have condemned Trumbo to the ignominious death of a traitor, just as the Rosenburgs were executed for their actions and not their beliefs.

Ah, yes. So you want to execute Trumbo for writing scripts, do you? Did you think Spartacus was that dangerous a movie?

You seem to like Wikipedia. Here, let me do your work for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

This is actually a very balanced overview of the vermin scum marxist bugs - and it talks about "deconstruction" in the context of the marxist imperative to destroy the social cohesion of western civilization.

It also mentions Jack's disgusting homosexual communist hero, Herbert Marcuse.

And you still can't grasp the difference between deconstruction and destruction.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Hi Hairyballbag!

Now, what defines anarchy?
Property laws are a codification of rules restricting people from doing things. It's pretty simply, Gurk. Property happens to be the largest restriction on personal liberty in place today.

So, let me see if I have this straight- you believe that if a law stops you from walking into my house and sitting on my couch and watching my TV, I'm "restricting" your personal liberty?

Have I got that right?

[QUOTE}
Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry. Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?

[/QUOTE]

Really? What 'rights' do I have as a normal, non-homo white male that any other American does not also enjoy? Please provide a few examples?

It's a very simple contention, Gurk - that certain groups of people are not being granted the same individual rights as other groups of people.

Again - please provide examples. I've heard so much about this fabled 'white privilege' I supposedly enjoy, but someone must have taken mine.

And you still can't grasp the difference between deconstruction and destruction.

... and it's obvious you failed to read the linked article or lack the cognitive ability to grasp the concepts conveyed therein. If you had you would understand that the very concept of "deconstruction" is an integral component of the neo-marxist philosophy of Critical Theory, which itself is an epistimological model designed to implement the marxian imperative on the macro, cultural-wide level rather than just the narrow economic sphere.

And, of course, that marxian imperative is and has always been the "sweeping away of the pillars of bourgeois capitalist society", i.e. the destruction of the social cohesion of western civilization.

 

[TJHairball]

So, let me see if I have this straight- you believe that if a law stops you from walking into my house and sitting on my couch and watching my TV, I'm "restricting" your personal liberty?

Have I got that right?

Does that not restrict my choices, my activities, and my movements? In a word, my freedom of action?

This is why anarchy in its purest form never takes off very well. It's also worth noting that absolute freedom of action is only possible for a single individual, as adding additional "unrestricted" individuals winds up restricting [potentially and probably] either's activity. There's a trade-off. If I'm free to shoot you dead on sight, that restricts your freedoms immensely if it happens. (You are at that point only free to decompose, at a rate not of your choosing.)

Laws delineate boundaries between more and less important personal liberties. In practice, much restrictive activity (e.g., getting stuffed in jail, forcibly moved, prevented from taking a particular action) relates to laws protecting property rather than people. Thus, property is the main current restrictor of personal liberty, here and now. (This is not always the case.)

Really? What 'rights' do I have as a normal, non-homo white male that any other American does not also enjoy? Please provide a few examples?

For example... the right to marry a singular consenting adult partner you find sexually appealing in a state other than Massachussetts.

50 years ago (i.e., before the Civil Rights movement had significant successes) the right to vote, sit on the front of buses, etc etc etc.

Again - please provide examples. I've heard so much about this fabled 'white privilege' I supposedly enjoy, but someone must have taken mine.

Millions of people have been working hard for decades to take it away.

It hasn't been easy. Right now, it's been pretty severely reduced, to the point where any "extra" rights or preferential treatment is purely unofficial and prosecutable in civil court if demonstrable.

... and it's obvious you failed to read the linked article or lack the cognitive ability to grasp the concepts conveyed therein. If you had you would understand that the very concept of "deconstruction" is an integral component of the neo-marxist philosophy of Critical Theory, which itself is an epistimological model designed to implement the marxian imperative on the macro, cultural-wide level rather than just the narrow economic sphere.

And, of course, that marxian imperative is and has always been the "sweeping away of the pillars of bourgeois capitalist society", i.e. the destruction of the social cohesion of western civilization.

If you had any grasp of the term, you'd've noted by now that deconstruction is quite seperate from destruction.

Deconstruction is a question of analysis; not action, but understanding. It is in no way synonymous with destruction, as you keep insisting.

As far as the destruction of social cohesion, a number of philosophers the Frantfurt school actually would like to increase social cohesion in certain fashions. It is not a question of destroying society as much as re-shaping society into something morally defensible.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Does that not restrict my choices, my activities, and my movements? In a word, my freedom of action?

This is why anarchy in its purest form never takes off very well. It's also worth noting that absolute freedom of action is only possible for a single individual, as adding additional "unrestricted" individuals winds up restricting [potentially and probably] either's activity. There's a trade-off. If I'm free to shoot you dead on sight, that restricts your freedoms immensely if it happens. (You are at that point only free to decompose, at a rate not of your choosing.)

Laws delineate boundaries between more and less important personal liberties. In practice, much restrictive activity (e.g., getting stuffed in jail, forcibly moved, prevented from taking a particular action) relates to laws protecting property rather than people. Thus, property is the main current restrictor of personal liberty, here and now.

Interesting perspective, Hairyballbag. I'm begining to like you. You obviously take your black and red seriously and have spent some time contemplating the hidden depths of the philosophy. I was just into it for the drugs and the hippie chicks.

For example... the right to marry a singular consenting adult partner you find sexually appealing in a state other than Massachussetts.

Hold on! In an earlier post you said:

"Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry. Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?"

And then you said:

"It's a very simple contention, Gurk - that certain groups of people are not being granted the same individual rights as other groups of people."

This clearly impies that there are a whole host of rights that these Identity Groups are oppressively denied (in favor of hated white straight males, of course). I asked you to provide some examples of these rights that are denied ... and ALL you could come up with is homosexual marriage?

That's IT?

First of all, no homosexaul is denied the 'right' to marry, as marriage rights (Except Massachusetts) are exactly equal for all men and women. Secondly, the contention that homosexuals are denied a "right" if they can't "marry" is based upon the false premise that homosexual relationships are "the same thing/equal to in every way" to a good and wholesome marriage.

They're not.

Redefining marriage to include the transient love afairs of homosexuals would effectively denude the institution of most of the cultural connotations that have always been associated with marriage - cultural connotations that pre-date every existing government and legal code . Marriage has ALWAYS been associated culturally with the inception of new families (bloodlines) and the raising of children. To legally define the barren and sterile love affairs of homosexuals as being *equal* to the wholesome and fertile unions of men and women excises - cuts away, amputates, divorces - from marriage its primary cultural meaning: starting families and raising children.

Furthermore; the attempts to legally define homosexual relationships as "marriages" is nothing less than a Cultural Assault upon THE basic cultural institution that IS the vertitable brick upon which all societies, all cultures, all civilizations are built.

The "root" of this assault comes directly from classic Marxist Dialectic, with it's imperative to "sweep away the pillars of bourgeois society" in order to pave the way for the creation of the fairy tale utopia where "social justice" will reign and "true equality" will ensure an egalitarian happiness for all men and women. You may remember from your readings back in college as you sat under your Che Guavera poster that Marx identified three key "pillars of bourgeois society" that had to be "swept away". Do you remember them, Hairyballbag?

1) The Church, which has already been effectively destroyed as a cultural force, 2) The Family, which the leftist bugs are constantly trying to redefine, (It Takes A Village) and, yes 3) Marriage.

Thus I dispose of the "denied right" of homosexual marriage.

You got any other rights that I have as a straight white male that others are denied?

If you had any grasp of the term, you'd've noted by now that deconstruction is quite seperate from destruction.

Deconstruction is a question of analysis; not action, but understanding. It is in no way synonymous with destruction, as you keep insisting.

As far as the destruction of social cohesion, a number of philosophers the Frantfurt school actually would like to increase social cohesion in certain fashions. It is not a question of destroying society as much as re-shaping society into something morally defensible.

There it is - the leftist bugs want to "re-shap(e) society into something morally defensible", demanding that their paradigm and their morality be forced upon all of society while ignoring the simple pragmatic fact that most people want nothing to do with their ideas or methods. This is why 100 million people have been murdered by the ideological left over the past 100 years - because most people don't want anything to do with it and refuse to go along with that "re-shaping of society into something morally defensible" unless it's at the point of a gun.

 

[TJHairball]

I asked you to provide some examples of these rights that are denied ... and ALL you could come up with is homosexual marriage?

That's IT?

Gurk, that's the really big active current issue. Doesn't mean it's the only one out there... it's just the big one.

First of all, no homosexaul is denied the 'right' to marry, as marriage rights (Except Massachusetts) are exactly equal for all men and women.

So now you're claiming marriage rights are equal for all men and women everywhere except Massachussetts?

See Jane. Jane, being unmarried and of legal age, has the right to marry Bob, who is also of legal age and unmarried.

Jack, however, does not have the right to marry Bob, even though Jack is unmarried and of legal age. Ergo, Jack does not have the same right to marry as Jane.

You may claim that these are rights with parity, but where Jane, in any non-MA state, has the right to marry any single, willing, and adult male, Jack clearly does not.

And now you're claiming Jack and Jane have unequal rights in MA to boot when related to marriage? Show me the test case for that, Gurk. Demonstrate something willing, adult, and human that Jack can marry in MA that Jane can't, and vice versa.

Secondly, the contention that homosexuals are denied a "right" if they can't "marry" is based upon the false premise that homosexual relationships are "the same thing/equal to in every way" to a good and wholesome marriage.

They're not.

Redefining marriage to include the transient love afairs of homosexuals

Note that gay marriages are not transient, any more than heterosexual marriages are transient.

Figures are still mixed this early (higher in Sweden, the same in the Netherlands, lower in the US), but it doesn't look like gay marriages are "transient love affairs" by any standard of affairs.

Incidentally, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate - substantially lower than any other state.

would effectively denude the institution of most of the cultural connotations that have always been associated with marriage - cultural connotations that pre-date every existing government and legal code . Marriage has ALWAYS been associated culturally with the inception of new families (bloodlines) and the raising of children. To legally define the barren and sterile love affairs of homosexuals as being *equal* to the wholesome and fertile unions of men and women excises - cuts away, amputates, divorces - from marriage its primary cultural meaning: starting families and raising children.

Would you like to know how many kids my lesbian cousin, who tied the knot officially just about as soon as it was legal in MA (she actually lives in the DC area, but the symbology was nice), is raising?

It's more than any of my straight cousins have.

Furthermore; the attempts to legally define homosexual relationships as "marriages" is nothing less than a Cultural Assault upon THE basic cultural institution that IS the vertitable brick upon which all societies, all cultures, all civilizations are built.

The "root" of this assault comes directly from classic Marxist Dialectic, with it's imperative to "sweep away the pillars of bourgeois society" in order to pave the way for the creation of the fairy tale utopia where "social justice" will reign and "true equality" will ensure an egalitarian happiness for all men and women. You may remember from your readings back in college as you sat under your Che Guavera poster that Marx identified three key "pillars of bourgeois society" that had to be "swept away". Do you remember them, Hairyballbag?

1) The Church, which has already been effectively destroyed as a cultural force, 2) The Family, which the leftist bugs are constantly trying to redefine, (It Takes A Village) and, yes 3) Marriage.

And while under that Che Guavera poster, you should remember that Che got married, and that in America, it was Jefferson leading away the sweep of the power of the Church; Marx, who shuttled between England and Germany, thought it was a really good idea. "Kudos, Jefferson et al," said Marx with that pillar, notorious for his poor relationship with the rest of his family.

That said, churches are still a very powerful cultural force. I don't know where you live that you think they aren't.

Marx suggested getting rid of marriage entirely. This is exactly the reverse of what we're talking about here with the expansion of marriage.

Right now, in America, gay people are taking marriage more seriously than most straight people.

Thus I dispose of the "denied right" of homosexual marriage.

Thus your claim is disposed of.

You got any other rights that I have as a straight white male that others are denied?

Mmm? Try getting past the marriage question first, then we'll talk. There aren't too many left that are legally recognized, thanks to the civil rights movement, but there are one or two others we can get to in time.

There it is - the leftist bugs want to "re-shap(e) society into something morally defensible", demanding that their paradigm and their morality be forced upon all of society while ignoring the simple pragmatic fact that most people want nothing to do with their ideas or methods. This is why 100 million people have been murdered by the ideological left over the past 100 years - because most people don't want anything to do with it and refuse to go along with that "re-shaping of society into something morally defensible" unless it's at the point of a gun.

"100 million over the past 100 years," says the man who keeps trying to define facists as the ideological left, when the Axis of WWII was in fact ideologically opposed to the left. Mmm... shall we then move 50 million or so deaths over from your left hand column to your right hand column? That should just leave you with ideologically linked deaths attributed to Mao, Stalin, the Russian Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge, which could easily be estimated in the approximate range of 50 million*. In the case of Stalin and Mao, such readily avoidable deaths as could be laid at their feet are precisely the general type of activity as you're advocating against leftists.

If your suggestion about summarily executing all the leftists was carried out, it would be a far higher death toll, of course. Much more than any in history.

This, when about 200 million or so individuals have been tracably murdered by various states over the years, with estimates widely varying on who is to blame for how many deaths and what counts as one of the murders in question. The ideological left is no more to blame than the ideological right, thank you muchly.

*Milage may vary.

 

[Blindgroping]

I'm sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say...