United States Embassy Burning Video (today)

[TimeBits]

https://www.instagram.com/p/ByI85_GHBAG/?igshid=1rupht108dbb9
lol a tire fire

[TimeBits]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adgx9wt63NY We don`t need no water let the mother fucker burn, burn mother fucker burn.

[TECSHARE]

So what is this about? Are they angry they can't simply flood into our country unimpeded any more?

[TimeBits]

So what is this about? Are they angry they can't simply flood into our country unimpeded any more?

no clue to be honest, I guess this
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/americas/us-embassy-honduras-fire/index.html

[TECSHARE]

So what is this about? Are they angry they can't simply flood into our country unimpeded any more?

no clue to be honest, I guess this
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/americas/us-embassy-honduras-fire/index.html

If anyone has more detailed information on their grievances or the industries to be privatized I would appreciate the information. Right now I am pretty much just chocking this up to standard low level South American style Communist terrorism.

[coins4commies]

First, learn history

U.S. military presence in Honduras and the roots of Honduran migration to the United States are closely linked. It began in the late 1890s, when U.S.-based banana companies first became active there. As historian Walter LaFeber writes in “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America,” American companies “built railroads, established their own banking systems, and bribed government officials at a dizzying pace.” As a result, the Caribbean coast “became a foreign-controlled enclave that systematically swung the whole of Honduras into a one-crop economy whose wealth was carried off to New Orleans, New York, and later Boston.”

By 1914, U.S. banana interests owned almost 1 million acres of Honduras’ best land. These holdings grew through the 1920s to such an extent that, as LaFeber asserts, Honduran peasants “had no hope of access to their nation’s good soil.” Over a few decades, U.S. capital also came to dominate the country’s banking and mining sectors, a process facilitated by the weak state of Honduras’ domestic business sector. This was coupled with direct U.S. political and military interventions to protect U.S. interests in 1907 and 1911.

Such developments made Honduras’ ruling class dependent on Washington for support. A central component of this ruling class was and remains the Honduran military. By the mid-1960s it had become, in LaFeber’s words, the country’s “most developed political institution,” – one that Washington played a key role in shaping.

This was especially the case during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. political and military policy was so influential that many referred to the Central American country as the “U.S.S. Honduras” and the Pentagon Republic.

As part of its effort to overthrow the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua and “roll back” the region’s leftist movements, the Reagan administration “temporarily” stationed several hundred U.S. soldiers in Honduras. Moreover, it trained and sustained Nicaragua’s “contra” rebels on Honduran soil, while greatly increasing military aid and arm sales to the country.

The Reagan years also saw the construction of numerous joint Honduran-U.S. military bases and installations. Such moves greatly strengthened the militarization of Honduran society. In turn, political repression rose. There was a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, “disappearances” and illegal detentions.

The Reagan administration also played a big role in restructuring the Honduran economy. It did so by strongly pushing for internal economic reforms, with a focus on exporting manufactured goods. It also helped deregulate and destabilize the global coffee trade, upon which Honduras heavily depended. These changes made Honduras more amenable to the interests of global capital. They disrupted traditional forms of agriculture and undermined an already weak social safety net.

These decades of U.S. involvement in Honduras set the stage for Honduran emigration to the United States, which began to markedly increase in the 1990s.

In the post-Reagan era, Honduras remained a country scarred by a heavy-handed military, significant human rights abuses and pervasive poverty. Still, liberalizing tendencies of successive governments and grassroots pressure provided openings for democratic forces.

They contributed, for example, to the election of Manuel Zelaya, a liberal reformist, as president in 2006. He led on progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage. He also tried to organize a plebiscite to allow for a constituent assembly to replace the country’s constitution, which had been written during a military government. However, these efforts incurred the ire of the country’s oligarchy, leading to his overthrow by the military in June 2009

The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration has played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.

Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, formerly Palmerola, in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.

Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.” The Trump administration’s recognition, in December 2017, of President Juan Orlando Hernández’s re-election—after a process marked by deep irregularities, fraud and violence. This continues Washington’s longstanding willingness to overlook official corruption in Honduras as long as the country’s ruling elites serve what are defined as U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. The frequent politically motivated killings are rarely punished. In 2017, Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization, found that Honduras was the world’s deadliest country for environmental activists.

[TECSHARE]

First, learn history

U.S. military presence in Honduras and the roots of Honduran migration to the United States are closely linked. It began in the late 1890s, when U.S.-based banana companies first became active there. As historian Walter LaFeber writes in “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America,” American companies “built railroads, established their own banking systems, and bribed government officials at a dizzying pace.” As a result, the Caribbean coast “became a foreign-controlled enclave that systematically swung the whole of Honduras into a one-crop economy whose wealth was carried off to New Orleans, New York, and later Boston.”

By 1914, U.S. banana interests owned almost 1 million acres of Honduras’ best land. These holdings grew through the 1920s to such an extent that, as LaFeber asserts, Honduran peasants “had no hope of access to their nation’s good soil.” Over a few decades, U.S. capital also came to dominate the country’s banking and mining sectors, a process facilitated by the weak state of Honduras’ domestic business sector. This was coupled with direct U.S. political and military interventions to protect U.S. interests in 1907 and 1911.

Such developments made Honduras’ ruling class dependent on Washington for support. A central component of this ruling class was and remains the Honduran military. By the mid-1960s it had become, in LaFeber’s words, the country’s “most developed political institution,” – one that Washington played a key role in shaping.

This was especially the case during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. political and military policy was so influential that many referred to the Central American country as the “U.S.S. Honduras” and the Pentagon Republic.

As part of its effort to overthrow the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua and “roll back” the region’s leftist movements, the Reagan administration “temporarily” stationed several hundred U.S. soldiers in Honduras. Moreover, it trained and sustained Nicaragua’s “contra” rebels on Honduran soil, while greatly increasing military aid and arm sales to the country.

The Reagan years also saw the construction of numerous joint Honduran-U.S. military bases and installations. Such moves greatly strengthened the militarization of Honduran society. In turn, political repression rose. There was a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, “disappearances” and illegal detentions.

The Reagan administration also played a big role in restructuring the Honduran economy. It did so by strongly pushing for internal economic reforms, with a focus on exporting manufactured goods. It also helped deregulate and destabilize the global coffee trade, upon which Honduras heavily depended. These changes made Honduras more amenable to the interests of global capital. They disrupted traditional forms of agriculture and undermined an already weak social safety net.

These decades of U.S. involvement in Honduras set the stage for Honduran emigration to the United States, which began to markedly increase in the 1990s.

In the post-Reagan era, Honduras remained a country scarred by a heavy-handed military, significant human rights abuses and pervasive poverty. Still, liberalizing tendencies of successive governments and grassroots pressure provided openings for democratic forces.

They contributed, for example, to the election of Manuel Zelaya, a liberal reformist, as president in 2006. He led on progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage. He also tried to organize a plebiscite to allow for a constituent assembly to replace the country’s constitution, which had been written during a military government. However, these efforts incurred the ire of the country’s oligarchy, leading to his overthrow by the military in June 2009

The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration has played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.

Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, formerly Palmerola, in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.

Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.” The Trump administration’s recognition, in December 2017, of President Juan Orlando Hernández’s re-election—after a process marked by deep irregularities, fraud and violence. This continues Washington’s longstanding willingness to overlook official corruption in Honduras as long as the country’s ruling elites serve what are defined as U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. The frequent politically motivated killings are rarely punished. In 2017, Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization, found that Honduras was the world’s deadliest country for environmental activists.

I am familiar thank you, not that I give any credit to history lessons from a person that denies the over a hundred million were killed by Communism. None of this explains why it is now suddenly an issue.

[KingScorpio]

First, learn history

U.S. military presence in Honduras and the roots of Honduran migration to the United States are closely linked. It began in the late 1890s, when U.S.-based banana companies first became active there. As historian Walter LaFeber writes in “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America,” American companies “built railroads, established their own banking systems, and bribed government officials at a dizzying pace.” As a result, the Caribbean coast “became a foreign-controlled enclave that systematically swung the whole of Honduras into a one-crop economy whose wealth was carried off to New Orleans, New York, and later Boston.”

By 1914, U.S. banana interests owned almost 1 million acres of Honduras’ best land. These holdings grew through the 1920s to such an extent that, as LaFeber asserts, Honduran peasants “had no hope of access to their nation’s good soil.” Over a few decades, U.S. capital also came to dominate the country’s banking and mining sectors, a process facilitated by the weak state of Honduras’ domestic business sector. This was coupled with direct U.S. political and military interventions to protect U.S. interests in 1907 and 1911.

Such developments made Honduras’ ruling class dependent on Washington for support. A central component of this ruling class was and remains the Honduran military. By the mid-1960s it had become, in LaFeber’s words, the country’s “most developed political institution,” – one that Washington played a key role in shaping.

This was especially the case during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. political and military policy was so influential that many referred to the Central American country as the “U.S.S. Honduras” and the Pentagon Republic.

As part of its effort to overthrow the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua and “roll back” the region’s leftist movements, the Reagan administration “temporarily” stationed several hundred U.S. soldiers in Honduras. Moreover, it trained and sustained Nicaragua’s “contra” rebels on Honduran soil, while greatly increasing military aid and arm sales to the country.

The Reagan years also saw the construction of numerous joint Honduran-U.S. military bases and installations. Such moves greatly strengthened the militarization of Honduran society. In turn, political repression rose. There was a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, “disappearances” and illegal detentions.

The Reagan administration also played a big role in restructuring the Honduran economy. It did so by strongly pushing for internal economic reforms, with a focus on exporting manufactured goods. It also helped deregulate and destabilize the global coffee trade, upon which Honduras heavily depended. These changes made Honduras more amenable to the interests of global capital. They disrupted traditional forms of agriculture and undermined an already weak social safety net.

These decades of U.S. involvement in Honduras set the stage for Honduran emigration to the United States, which began to markedly increase in the 1990s.

In the post-Reagan era, Honduras remained a country scarred by a heavy-handed military, significant human rights abuses and pervasive poverty. Still, liberalizing tendencies of successive governments and grassroots pressure provided openings for democratic forces.

They contributed, for example, to the election of Manuel Zelaya, a liberal reformist, as president in 2006. He led on progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage. He also tried to organize a plebiscite to allow for a constituent assembly to replace the country’s constitution, which had been written during a military government. However, these efforts incurred the ire of the country’s oligarchy, leading to his overthrow by the military in June 2009

The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration has played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.

Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, formerly Palmerola, in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.

Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.” The Trump administration’s recognition, in December 2017, of President Juan Orlando Hernández’s re-election—after a process marked by deep irregularities, fraud and violence. This continues Washington’s longstanding willingness to overlook official corruption in Honduras as long as the country’s ruling elites serve what are defined as U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. The frequent politically motivated killings are rarely punished. In 2017, Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization, found that Honduras was the world’s deadliest country for environmental activists.

I am familiar thank you, not that I give any credit to history lessons from a person that denies the over a hundred million were killed by Communism. None of this explains why it is now suddenly an issue.

how many hundred million have been killed by capitalists that centered the entire worlds economy towards building pools for themselves and their gay fascist communities?

all people dying in poverty and starvation in india and africa today are effectivly victims of capitalism, chinese communism has freed more than a billion people.

[TECSHARE]

how many hundred million have been killed by capitalists that centered the entire worlds economy towards building pools for themselves and their gay fascist communities?

all people dying in poverty and starvation in india and africa today are effectivly victims of capitalism, chinese communism has freed more than a billion people.

Oh look it is Woke China Bro, one of the few people with even lower grade replies than Captain Postmodern there. So now everyone that starves while capitalism exists is the responsibility of capitalism now? WAT? Communism directly killed AT LEAST 100 million people, about 60 million ALONE in China. Freed a billion people my ass, the Chinese are subjects that are not even allowed to choose what they want to say and read.

[KingScorpio]

how many hundred million have been killed by capitalists that centered the entire worlds economy towards building pools for themselves and their gay fascist communities?

all people dying in poverty and starvation in india and africa today are effectivly victims of capitalism, chinese communism has freed more than a billion people.

Oh look it is Woke China Bro, one of the few people with even lower grade replies than Captain Postmodern there. So now everyone that starves while capitalism exists is the responsibility of capitalism now? WAT? Communism directly killed AT LEAST 100 million people, about 60 million ALONE in China. Freed a billion people my ass, the Chinese are subjects that are not even allowed to choose what they want to say and read.

in communism there is also capitalism, the question is what do the capitalists, do.

liberty capitalism like usa isnt really seeking to free whole world from poverty..

you are an idiot you dont understand how capitalism kills.

i explain it to you:

1. you create and surpress with a banking cartel

2. you centre the economy of your banking cartel on enriching the banksters

3. you blame the poor for being poor and not working hard enough for the money of the banking cartel

thats it.

kapitalism also kills

give me access to your capitalist financial system and i join it. i join no capitalist state which i dont have acess to the financial system.

[TECSHARE]

how many hundred million have been killed by capitalists that centered the entire worlds economy towards building pools for themselves and their gay fascist communities?

all people dying in poverty and starvation in india and africa today are effectivly victims of capitalism, chinese communism has freed more than a billion people.

Oh look it is Woke China Bro, one of the few people with even lower grade replies than Captain Postmodern there. So now everyone that starves while capitalism exists is the responsibility of capitalism now? WAT? Communism directly killed AT LEAST 100 million people, about 60 million ALONE in China. Freed a billion people my ass, the Chinese are subjects that are not even allowed to choose what they want to say and read.

in communism there is also capitalism, the question is what do the capitalists, do.

liberty capitalism like usa isnt really seeking to free whole world from poverty..

you are an idiot you dont understand how capitalism kills.

i explain it to you:

1. you create and surpress with a banking cartel

2. you centre the economy of your banking cartel on enriching the banksters

3. you blame the poor for being poor and not working hard enough for the money of the banking cartel

thats it.

kapitalism also kills

give me access to your capitalist financial system and i join it. i join no capitalist state which i dont have acess to the financial system.

So because I don't blame capitalism for every starving person I blame the poor for being poor? What? Your brain is like a birds nest of disjointed Communist platitudes. Banking cartels are not capitalism, they are criminal monopolies that I don't like any more than Communism, especially considering they INVENTED Communism, and this is documented fact. The fact that these cartels exist does not impugn the entire ideology of capitalism, nor make capitalism responsible for every poor or starving person on the face of the Earth. Communism kills. It literally lines people up and shoots them. It intentionally causes famine in order to genocide its own populations. Worst of all Communism crushes peoples SOULS and MINDS by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator in the name of "equality".

[KingScorpio]

how many hundred million have been killed by capitalists that centered the entire worlds economy towards building pools for themselves and their gay fascist communities?

all people dying in poverty and starvation in india and africa today are effectivly victims of capitalism, chinese communism has freed more than a billion people.

Oh look it is Woke China Bro, one of the few people with even lower grade replies than Captain Postmodern there. So now everyone that starves while capitalism exists is the responsibility of capitalism now? WAT? Communism directly killed AT LEAST 100 million people, about 60 million ALONE in China. Freed a billion people my ass, the Chinese are subjects that are not even allowed to choose what they want to say and read.

in communism there is also capitalism, the question is what do the capitalists, do.

liberty capitalism like usa isnt really seeking to free whole world from poverty..

you are an idiot you dont understand how capitalism kills.

i explain it to you:

1. you create and surpress with a banking cartel

2. you centre the economy of your banking cartel on enriching the banksters

3. you blame the poor for being poor and not working hard enough for the money of the banking cartel

thats it.

kapitalism also kills

give me access to your capitalist financial system and i join it. i join no capitalist state which i dont have acess to the financial system.

So because I don't blame capitalism for every starving person I blame the poor for being poor? What? Your brain is like a birds nest of disjointed Communist platitudes. Banking cartels are not capitalism, they are criminal monopolies that I don't like any more than Communism, especially considering they INVENTED Communism, and this is documented fact. The fact that these cartels exist does not impugn the entire ideology of capitalism, nor make capitalism responsible for every poor or starving person on the face of the Earth. Communism kills. It literally lines people up and shoots them. It intentionally causes famine in order to genocide its own populations. Worst of all Communism crushes peoples SOULS and MINDS by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator in the name of "equality".

liberty capitalism is defacto responsible for every starving person, china historically had always starvation, only communism effectivly fixed the issue on its own (with environmental consequences)

humanist communism is the safest humanist way for the human collective, but it can't be enforced globally for egoistic antihumanist regions,

satanists, environmentalists and nativists hate poor foreigners and dont want to share with them (brexit brittons)

billionaires want to enslave others as money earning cattle for their private propterty (trump, bitcoin whales)

its pointless to discuss as if you are one of the mentioned groups you just want to troll around against humanist communism and socialism.

you dont want to publicly admit that you are antihuman. as nobody would then trust you or you would have to associate yourselves with the likes of you (satanist club) in which you are being then killed by each other.

thats why the likey of you always mixes with socialists/communists. because he doesnt feel safe with the likes of him

[coolcoinz]

its pointless to discuss as if you are one of the mentioned groups you just want to troll around against humanist communism and socialism.

you dont want to publicly admit that you are antihuman. as nobody would then trust you or you would have to associate yourselves with the likes of you (satanist club) in which you are being then killed by each other.

thats why the likey of you always mixes with socialists/communists. because he doesnt feel safe with the likes of him

A communist calls other people antihuman and claims that communists are humanists. The world is turning upside down.

I'd like to remind you that no communist government has managed to survive or even come to power without executing people, starting with the Bolsheviks and ending with the Kims of North Korea. Bolsheviks were cutting people's throats with sickles, Stalinists were shooting people in the back of the head or poisoning them, Che Guevara personally executed people, including women, Kim Dzong Un is feeding people to starving packs of dogs, even his own family members... Such humanism, such love for live and mutual friendship. There's no bigger humanist than a communist!

The more I read your posts the more I'm certain that you are writing this on drugs.

[TheCoinGrabber]

"We can no longer just easily flood into America, reeeeeee!"

Now that I've thought about it, it's counterproductive. Maybe, just maybe, this would make a negative impression on people in America who'd like to take in as many "immigrants" as possible while letting their own people live in tent cities and crap in public.

A communist calls other people antihuman and claims that communists are humanists. The world is turning upside down.

I'd like to remind you that no communist government has managed to survive or even come to power without executing people, starting with the Bolsheviks and ending with the Kims of North Korea. Bolsheviks were cutting people's throats with sickles, Stalinists were shooting people in the back of the head or poisoning them, Che Guevara personally executed people, including women, Kim Dzong Un is feeding people to starving packs of dogs, even his own family members... Such humanism, such love for live and mutual friendship. There's no bigger humanist than a communist!

The more I read your posts the more I'm certain that you are writing this on drugs.

If all communist regimes can only be as peaceful like California. No killing, just shit and used syringes on the streets.

[KingScorpio]

its pointless to discuss as if you are one of the mentioned groups you just want to troll around against humanist communism and socialism.

you dont want to publicly admit that you are antihuman. as nobody would then trust you or you would have to associate yourselves with the likes of you (satanist club) in which you are being then killed by each other.

thats why the likey of you always mixes with socialists/communists. because he doesnt feel safe with the likes of him

A communist calls other people antihuman and claims that communists are humanists. The world is turning upside down.

I'd like to remind you that no communist government has managed to survive or even come to power without executing people, starting with the Bolsheviks and ending with the Kims of North Korea. Bolsheviks were cutting people's throats with sickles, Stalinists were shooting people in the back of the head or poisoning them, Che Guevara personally executed people, including women, Kim Dzong Un is feeding people to starving packs of dogs, even his own family members... Such humanism, such love for live and mutual friendship. There's no bigger humanist than a communist!

The more I read your posts the more I'm certain that you are writing this on drugs.

jes communism is the most humanist religion out there, all others plan with your debt and your abuse. and i have researched the world quite a lot.

all alternatives are just abuseive scam like the liberal democratic banking cartels

i am actually not a communist, as i dont believe that humanism will ever work for all. but communism is definatelly better for the average person than living under a scam banking cartel like usa that enriches 5% of countries and 1% of the population

etc.

[coolcoinz]

If all communist regimes can only be as peaceful like California. No killing, just shit and used syringes on the streets.

And what does a political system have to do with normal human autodestructive nature?  Do you believe there were no addicts in communist regimes?

jes communism is the most humanist religion out there, all others plan with your debt and your abuse. and i have researched the world quite a lot.

all alternatives are just abuseive scam like the liberal democratic banking cartels

i am actually not a communist, as i dont believe that humanism will ever work for all. but communism is definatelly better for the average person than living under a scam banking cartel like usa that enriches 5% of countries and 1% of the population

etc.

It's better in its basics, but the basics don't create a system and the basics by themselves don't work. That is why no communist system was built on these basics and all of them had to steer towards dictatorship to enforce the "most humanist of all systems".
I'd really prefer to manage my debt than get a bullet in the head in a communist regime or have to eat grass to survive.

[TECSHARE]

liberty capitalism is defacto responsible for every starving person, china historically had always starvation, only communism effectivly fixed the issue on its own (with environmental consequences)

humanist communism is the safest humanist way for the human collective, but it can't be enforced globally for egoistic antihumanist regions,

satanists, environmentalists and nativists hate poor foreigners and dont want to share with them (brexit brittons)

billionaires want to enslave others as money earning cattle for their private propterty (trump, bitcoin whales)

its pointless to discuss as if you are one of the mentioned groups you just want to troll around against humanist communism and socialism.

you dont want to publicly admit that you are antihuman. as nobody would then trust you or you would have to associate yourselves with the likes of you (satanist club) in which you are being then killed by each other.

thats why the likey of you always mixes with socialists/communists. because he doesnt feel safe with the likes of him

Ok, so capitalism is responsible for all starving people and China has solved starvation. OooooOOOOok. Sure.

How much "sharing" is enough? How about you let a couple hobos live in your bedroom with you since you are so keen on sharing. The USA gives more to charity than any other nation on Earth. I am flattered you think I am a billionaire, but no, I am not. Communism is a cancer on humanity. Communism is like a punch bowl full of antifreeze that everyone raves how sweet it is, then they all drink it up and die.

I am very pro human. I am also pro reality, and reality tells me as humanity is now we cant just simply substitute empathy for logic, because if we do EVEN MORE humans will suffer and die, and then when it is done there will be no place to run to.

You did get one thing right though, I don't feel safe with Socialists and Communists.

[coins4commies]

its pointless to discuss as if you are one of the mentioned groups you just want to troll around against humanist communism and socialism.

you dont want to publicly admit that you are antihuman. as nobody would then trust you or you would have to associate yourselves with the likes of you (satanist club) in which you are being then killed by each other.

thats why the likey of you always mixes with socialists/communists. because he doesnt feel safe with the likes of him

A communist calls other people antihuman and claims that communists are humanists. The world is turning upside down.

I'd like to remind you that no communist government has managed to survive or even come to power without executing people, starting with the Bolsheviks and ending with the Kims of North Korea. Bolsheviks were cutting people's throats with sickles, Stalinists were shooting people in the back of the head or poisoning them, Che Guevara personally executed people, including women, Kim Dzong Un is feeding people to starving packs of dogs, even his own family members... Such humanism, such love for live and mutual friendship. There's no bigger humanist than a communist!

The more I read your posts the more I'm certain that you are writing this on drugs.

Its such a weird take because you laser focus on extrajudicial killings from what you perceive as communist regimes but ignore the fact that every large country in history does this and that it is more about internal civil struggles/civil war than economic system.

How do you ignore all the murders that have happened in so-called capitalist countries?  Do you really think the US would let groups of people live if they were a serious threat to bringing down the entire government and economic system?   Almost every black leader in US history got a bullet in his head.  

Not to mention almost anyone associated with people who have said mean things about the US recently has had their entire home blown up by airstrikes. Even Osama Bin laden was murdered instead of being brought to justice.  

Thats just what happens in war.  The opposition is crushed or they win.  Americans should understand this the most since they believe in shooting people simply for coming on their property, are a world leader in capital punishment as well as the murder of civilians abroad and generally accept a police state where the government shoots people just for not following commands or wearing the wrong skin tone.  

Its also wrong to classify all communists as a monolith.  Not only does it ignore the historical struggles and infighting amongst the far left but it denies the existence of multiple leftist ideologies.  

 I'm a pacifist, for example and would never resort to war are killing but you can be militant independent of your economic beliefs.