"ØbaMaØ Tse Dung" wrote in message
...

Lenin identified “Useful Idiots” as those who lived in liberal
democracies and furthered the work of communism.


Don't lots of people say that Christians are idiots?

On 8/30/10 11:22 , Witziges Rätsel wrote:
"ØbaMaØ Tse wrote in message
...

Lenin identified “Useful Idiots” as those who lived in liberal
democracies and furthered the work of communism.


Don't lots of people say that Christians are idiots?





It's easy to call names.

A little more significant to create one, and then define it.

But not by much.

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for
actual dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy
of engaging by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 11:22 , Witziges Rätsel wrote:
"ØbaMaØ Tse wrote in message
...

Lenin identified “Useful Idiots” as those who lived in liberal
democracies and furthered the work of communism.


Don't lots of people say that Christians are idiots?





It's easy to call names.

A little more significant to create one, and then define it.

But not by much.

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for actual
dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy of engaging
by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

It's where any ignoramus who calls the Nazis "Socialists" is today.

Jim

On Aug 30, 1:27*pm, "Clave" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ...



On 8/30/10 11:22 , Witziges Rätsel wrote:
"ØbaMaØ Tse *wrote in message
....

Lenin identified “Useful Idiots” as those who lived in liberal
democracies and furthered the work of communism.

* *Don't lots of people say that Christians are idiots?

*It's easy to call names.

*A little more significant to create one, and then define it.

*But not by much.

*But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for actual
dialogue about an issue....

- - to decry an opponent of not worthy of engaging
- - by attaching a name to him/her.
- - Which is where we are, today.

- It's where any ignoramus who calls the
- Nazis "Socialists" is today.
- Jim

Gee Wow isn't 'ignoramus' name calling . . .

rotfl ~ RHF

-note- there are many stops on the road to socialism
-and- the road to socialism is paved with good intentions

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 15:27 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...

...

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for
actual
dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy of
engaging
by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

It's where any ignoramus who calls the Nazis "Socialists" is today.

Thank you for underscoring my point.

That you're a political illiterate? You hardly needed my help for that.

But you're welcome, I guess.

Jim

On 8/30/2010 5:02 PM, RHF wrote:

Gee Wow isn't 'ignoramus' name calling . . .

Actually, no. In this case, it's a statement of fact.

On 8/30/10 18:38 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 15:27 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...

...

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for
actual
dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy of
engaging
by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

It's where any ignoramus who calls the Nazis "Socialists" is today.

Thank you for underscoring my point.

That you're a political illiterate? You hardly needed my help for that.

But you're welcome, I guess.


Again. Name calling rather than addressing the discussion.

That would suggest not only a weak argument, but an inadequacy of
weilding it.

That is assuming that you HAD an argument.

So far, you've only shown your bluster.

Have a good evening, Jim.


P

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 18:38 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 15:27 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...

...

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for
actual dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy
of engaging by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

It's where any ignoramus who calls the Nazis "Socialists" is today.

Thank you for underscoring my point.

That you're a political illiterate? You hardly needed my help for that.

But you're welcome, I guess.


Again. Name calling rather than addressing the discussion.

I *am* addressing the discussion -- it's about your political pig-ignorance
and the way you cling to it like some kind of worn-out security blanky.

I can understand how you'd want to pretend it's about something else,
though.

Jim

On 8/30/10 19:53 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 18:38 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/30/10 15:27 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...

...

But it's been historically useful to substitute name calling for
actual dialogue about an issue....to decry an opponent of not worthy
of engaging by attaching a name to him/her.

Which is where we are, today.

It's where any ignoramus who calls the Nazis "Socialists" is today.

Thank you for underscoring my point.

That you're a political illiterate? You hardly needed my help for that.

But you're welcome, I guess.


Again. Name calling rather than addressing the discussion.

I *am* addressing the discussion -- it's about your political pig-ignorance
and the way you cling to it like some kind of worn-out security blanky.

I can understand how you'd want to pretend it's about something else,
though.


Yes, I thought you might.

That married Irish woman wayyyyyyyyyy over yonder across the big pond,
one time she said she checks the Clarion Ledger obituaries if she
doesn't hear from me once in a while.And a guy from Croatia gets worried
too.
cuhulin