No.

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January 2017 draws to a close with a new POTUS and none of the new world order having come to pass I am sure I will find your newest conspiracy theories regarding President Lawnchair to be just as fantastic.

Are you referring to Thou shalt not covet? To say that doesn't fit here is an understatement. Too bad Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies isn't one, as you could learn a lot from it.

I am not going to read it for you. If you want the Cliff's notes, this is the closest to them I have found. Clearly I cannot motivate you to pursue knowledge, but perhaps they can.

You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusing to read the fundamental text on it. It would be like someone claiming to be knowledgeable on Jesus because they read about him on uncyclopedia.

No worries, brother. Tell blackwidowb I said hi.

Here is a link to a doctor discussing hand guns vs. long guns and the medical effects of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Warning: Graphic medical content.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. Oh, sure, we'll get an answer of sorts that will alienate a good chunk of the population of the US, but it will be about as reassuring as the Warren Commission report.

If that is the case, then wouldn't your argument be going back towards President Lawnchair having done nothing? If he really isn't

... then it would be difficult to imagine him being able to find any time to do any POTUS stuff. Even more so, it would be quite nearly impossible for him to gather this party to gather momentum for legislation.

In other words if you want to take that angle you can't really support your bit about him prepping to bring about a new world order.

And with that you make it quite clear that if you did attempt to read The Communist Manifesto, you completely missed the key point.

Equally so the point remains that the tea party doesn't actually represent fiscal accountability. They use that catch phrase as a pleasant veneer for their main goal of providing maximum benefits to the smallest fraction of "earners" at the top of the economic ladder, at the cost of everyone else.

Actually, you so far haven't displayed any functional understanding of Communism or Communist ideals. Hence the correct statement would be that you haven't shown yourself to have read Marx at all.

Where would you like to move the goalposts to now? Do you have any recollection to where they were originally before you started moving them?

And clearly, you discarded my response because yours was in some magical way vastly superior.

In other words thank you for no rebuttal whatsoever.

I will go ahead and repeat what I said earlier:

In other words, your malarkey about the tea party being somehow in pursuit of "fiscal accountability" is malarkey at best. Your party wants only to bring more wealth to their favored class, which is frankly astonishing as it is only a further acceleration of where the vast overwhelming majority of this country's wealth already accumulates.