It’s rare to see someone duck and dive as much as you are doing… but it takes all kinds, I guess.
It’s rare to see someone going “this you” (several times, I might add) without any elaboration whatsoever, and then trying to talk about “dodging” things.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”? Hmm? How exactly do you go about measuring that? (At this point you’ll realise you’re just a contrarian kid who doesn’t even possess the vocabulary to talk about the thing he’s challenging, but you’ll never admit it, even to yourself.)
How does one measure “taking root”? Oh I know, by actually seeing how far into the pot the roots have dug. So what precisely are the roots in a non-tangible political movement? Can’t answer? Because you know how silly it is?
Thirdly, your entire argument is “no, that’s not the reason socialism didn’t take off in America, the reason is that it was forcibly suppressed so everyone just gave up on it and there’s no-one deluding themselves that they’ll make it big one day and that’s why they should support policies that help the rich and be against proper welfare”.
Probably paraphrased poorly, so why don’t you specify your argument. You know, unless you’re a contrarian kid and literally have none. ;)
That’s because you are rarely gifted in the “can’t-see-the-bloody-obvious” department.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”?
Again… this you?
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Who brought this piss-poor excuse of quote to a discussion about history? Me or you?
You want your quote to (somehow) not be fallacious? You describe what the term “take root” means - and do so in a way that (somehow) disqualifies the vast and well-documented history of socialist movements in US history.
so why don’t you specify your argument.
I’m not the one with the shit-take, Clyde - you are.
This you?
Looks pretty self-explanatory to me.
Again… this you?
It’s rare to see someone duck and dive as much as you are doing… but it takes all kinds, I guess.
It’s rare to see someone going “this you” (several times, I might add) without any elaboration whatsoever, and then trying to talk about “dodging” things.
Like why oh why would you ignore my question about what qualifies as “taking root”? Hmm? How exactly do you go about measuring that? (At this point you’ll realise you’re just a contrarian kid who doesn’t even possess the vocabulary to talk about the thing he’s challenging, but you’ll never admit it, even to yourself.)
How does one measure “taking root”? Oh I know, by actually seeing how far into the pot the roots have dug. So what precisely are the roots in a non-tangible political movement? Can’t answer? Because you know how silly it is?
Thirdly, your entire argument is “no, that’s not the reason socialism didn’t take off in America, the reason is that it was forcibly suppressed so everyone just gave up on it and there’s no-one deluding themselves that they’ll make it big one day and that’s why they should support policies that help the rich and be against proper welfare”.
Probably paraphrased poorly, so why don’t you specify your argument. You know, unless you’re a contrarian kid and literally have none. ;)
That’s because you are rarely gifted in the “can’t-see-the-bloody-obvious” department.
Again… this you?
Who brought this piss-poor excuse of quote to a discussion about history? Me or you?
You want your quote to (somehow) not be fallacious? You describe what the term “take root” means - and do so in a way that (somehow) disqualifies the vast and well-documented history of socialist movements in US history.
I’m not the one with the shit-take, Clyde - you are.