by oldedude on July 14, 2022 11:25 am
And then I explained myself. TWICE. Trying to smooth this over somehow. But you, as usual, saw ONE WORD and defined me by that. I wasn't calling you a Marxist. For the second time, it's the METHODOLOGY or PROCESS, NOT the GOAL. In addition, it was a comment in general. Like your wife, there's some illusion of grandeur. I was speaking about a movement.
Revolutionary methodology is quite different than constitutional, or soft revolution. If anything, you need to read up on your own belief system and see where it comes from and what you're associating yourself with. Maybe read some Saul Alinsky and pick the pieces you like and/or don't. That goes with several others.
I think it's funny though that you take such an extreme view of that word. You might want to read him with an open mind. The Liberal New World Order in to a religion, then he started the revolution that is still going on today. It was Che and Mao that initiated change with violent revolution.
So here's where I'm at. If you keep refusing to actually read the posts and react to what you think I said, good riddance. After all the things your wife and you have called us, and keep repeating, I would think you would have a thicker skin. Especially since I didn't call you a Marxist. I guess not. I have done my turn and am not responsible for you.
by Donna on July 14, 2022 12:37 pm
Nice tap dance. You're still trying to tie Sheri and me in with Marxists with your comment, "If anything, you need to read up on your own belief system and see where it comes from and what you're associating yourself with. Maybe read some Saul Alinsky and pick the pieces you like and/or don't."
I particularly enjoyed this gem: "The Liberal New World Order in to a religion, then he started the revolution that is still going on today. It was Che and Mao that initiated change with violent revolution."
My oh my, isn't that rich?
To quote Hts: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
