New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Pravda: America, never give up your guns.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/


The closing statement from the aforementioned Pravda article.

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

Sounds like pretty good advice. Pretty shameful that liberals in this country feel they have a mandate to do this, and it's just plain immoral that they would support an end around Congress via douche bag President issuing a Presidential decree.


There seems to be alot of anti NRA "gun nut" invective around here. Question, did any of the last 6 mass shootings involve people of this description?????
 
Americans will never give up their guns even if the Liberal goose stepping brown shirts go door to door and search every house they will not get them all.
 
Somehow that Pravda article fabricates a massacre of czarist officers, neglects to mention the broad-based support for the Bolsheviks that had volunteers coming out of the woodwork to create the Red Army almost out of nowhere, describes the gun confiscation by Joseph Stalin in 1929 as "after their victory in the civil war," and doesn't mention that the "leftist" government of Cuba--like Algeria and Vietnam in the 1960s--distributes guns to the population.
 
Hmm. Actually Gandhi supporters used a lot of violence which he officially deplored.


Fabricated slaughter of Czarist officers????


Read about "The Great Purge", yeh, and ask Yuri while your at it. Anyone who had any connection to the "Old Guard" in the military, and politically was rounded up and slaughtered.
This included very competent professional soldiers that were still serving La Rodina during Stalin's reign. However he couldn't trust any of these people.

You must recall, Stalin wasn't a "Great Russian", he was from the Caucuses, and had a natural mistrust of the ruling ethnic group in the Russian empire, in addition to having a reputation as a bully and a brute in his youth.


You liberals don't know this, but the Russians had very good intelligence during WW II because they had such a wide variety of "human resources" in their Empire, as well as an extensive network due to the migration of people to and from the Soviet Union around Europe and the world.

Stalin was given plenty of warning from at least 3 or 4 different sources about Operation Barbarossa. He thought the massive buildup on his border was merely a feignt, and that the real goal was Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England, which was canceled for various reasons.
His state of denial was so bad, that he refused to believe the warnings, and even refused to believe that an invasion was already in progress until after the Germans were no less than 50 miles inside Soviet territory kicking ass, and taking serious names.


The reason he was in such a state of denial was because in his mind, he was not ready for war with Germany (which he knew was inevitable) in the summer of 1941.


Afterall, he had just spent the pre war years murdering anyone and everyone who had ties to the Czarist regime, and wanted to totally rebuild the Red Army with people who were loyal to him and the Communist party above everything else.

Now when Barbarossa began, the Soviet Union and Germany had been in a "non aggression" pact where they split up Poland and parts of Eastern Euroupe. The Soviets were even shipping raw materials to buy off the Germans. This was all a part of the plan to buy time for the inevitable showdown between the two neighboring powers.

But like I said, Stalin was in denial, because Barbarossa didn't fit his timeline. Afterall, his Army was poorly led, because he spent the past decade butchering all the professional officers, and replaced them with inept apparatchiks.


As for Ghandi, yeh Ghandi stirred up anarchy and chaos for the British, and the Japanese were eager to exploit this.

The Japanese had they been successful in taking over India would have given the Hindus the same treatment of all the other people they ruled over. So Ghandi was largely overrated as another MLK.
 
So Pravda--in the time-honored tradition of anti-Marxist falsification of history--is saying that the Bolsheviks who triumphed in the civil war (1918-1920) under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, and took Moscow without a fight, were contemplating a slaughter begun by Joseph Stalin in 1927 and commenced mostly in 1946-1939. And they were also responsible for his gun control measures of 1929. As if Stalin's barbarities were part of the Bolshevik revolution, and not part of the counterrevolution against Bolshevism supported by Mussolini, Clrmenceau, Roosevelt, etc.
 
So Pravda--in the time-honored tradition of anti-Marxist falsification of history--is saying that the Bolsheviks who triumphed in the civil war (1918-1920) under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, and took Moscow without a fight, were contemplating a slaughter begun by Joseph Stalin in 1927 and commenced mostly in 1946-1939. And they were also responsible for his gun control measures of 1929. As if Stalin's barbarities were part of the Bolshevik revolution, and not part of the counterrevolution against Bolshevism supported by Mussolini, Clrmenceau, Roosevelt, etc.

Pravda's assertions aside, I think it's a special irony that a winger has adopted it. Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
<<<Bolsheviks who triumphed in the civil war (1918-1920) under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, and took Moscow without a fight, were contemplating a slaughter begun by Joseph Stalin in 1927 and commenced mostly in 1946-1939. And they were also responsible for his gun control measures of 1929. As if Stalin's barbarities were part of the Bolshevik revolution, and not part of the counterrevolution against Bolshevism supported by Mussolini, Clrmenceau, Roosevelt, etc. >>>
I'm not an expert in Russian history, El Cid is the Rooskiephile, however the idea that Moscow was taken by the Bolsheviks without a fight is incorrect.

Recall, there was a Russian revolution during WW I, and then the civil war which came after, during the Russian civil war Stalin killed counter revolutionaries and former Czarist officers now serving in the Red Army. He also carried out slaughters of the peasantry to discourage raids on his supply lines.

Likewise, from what little I know, Lenin didn't particularly care for Stalin, but he was a member of his 5 chair politburo none the less. Lenin died in 1924, but had become incapacitated by a stroke two years prior, and during this time Lenin's relationship with Stalin deteriorated further. Lenin even wanted Stalin removed as General Secretary, this last testament was withheld from the people. And Trotsky was eventually kicked out of the communist party, and deported where he set up an anti-Stalin government-in-exile in Mexico.

Later Stalin had Ramon Mercader kill trotsky in Mexico. He also killed the old Bolsheviks, major figures in the Communist party, and several Red Army officers.


And that doesn't even count the Great Purge, which was partly the result of the popularity of Kirov and unpopularity of Stalin. Many former high ranking revolutionaries were killed, as were many Polish, German, Korean, and even American emigrees fleeing the worst of the Great Depression, just to name a few victims.

All killed.

Oh, during the Russian Revolution it was Stalin who removed the editors of Pravda.


The fact remains, many people regardless of their level of commitment to the Communist party or other allegiances did not like Stalin.

Stalin simply went about consolidating his power by killing, jailing,or exiling anyone he suspected would turn on him.
 
Pravda's assertions aside, I think it's a special irony that a winger has adopted it. Strange bedfellows indeed.


Why should there be any irony in this at all??????????

You must remember, unlike you commiecrats, I actually have an open mind, and I always take good advice, regardless of the source.

I have an unhealthy cornfed dislike of the Rooskies, but according to Daniel Estulin, taking into consideration the treachery and corruption of our own Government, these ex Spetnatz, KGB, GRU as well as select members of Western intelligence agencies/and military are the few people he can actually trust these days.
 
Why should there be any irony in this at all??????????

You must remember, unlike you commiecrats, I actually have an open mind, and I always take good advice, regardless of the source.

I have an unhealthy cornfed dislike of the Rooskies, but according to Daniel Estulin, taking into consideration the treachery and corruption of our own Government, these ex Spetnatz, KGB, GRU as well as select members of Western intelligence agencies/and military are the few people he can actually trust these days.

It's just ironic that you, a committed winger, should take so readily to a Russian government organ, especially one with such a checkered past. Do you think Pravda would be telling its own citizens that?

Listen, if I have to explain what irony is to you, I'd rather you look it up and do the work on your own: teach a man to fish rather than....
 
Like I said, us Republicans have an open mind. I've come to accept maybe the Russians aren't so bad afterall. Now the one's here in this country who voted for Obama can eat shit and die for all I care, and I tell them that every opportunity I get. I even did it at school, when this babushka overheard my lunch date conversation a few years back. This bubble headed bimbo intruded into a private conversation, and chirpped, "I can't believe people think Obama is a communist, Marxist, etc."

I turned my head slowly, like a 16" gun turret, and made eye contact with her, and responded without missing a beat, "that's because he IS a communist!", and turned my head back to my date's attention, and carried on with the conversation <rolling my eyes>.


Communist Pinko Democrats on the other hand??????????? Totally different animal there, you people are inflexible, conformist, and quite frankly simple minded in every respect.
 
Like I said, us Republicans have an open mind. I've come to accept maybe the Russians aren't so bad afterall. Now the one's here in this country who voted for Obama can eat shit and die for all I care, and I tell them that every opportunity I get. I even did it at school, when this babushka overheard my lunch date conversation a few years back. This bubble headed bimbo intruded into a private conversation, and chirpped, "I can't believe people think Obama is a communist, Marxist, etc."

I turned my head slowly, like a 16" gun turret, and made eye contact with her, and responded without missing a beat, "that's because he IS a communist!", and turned my head back to my date's attention, and carried on with the conversation <rolling my eyes>.


Communist Pinko Democrats on the other hand??????????? Totally different animal there, you people are inflexible, conformist, and quite frankly simple minded in every respect.

Actually, your little anecdote makes you out to be the inflexible, simple-minded conformist.

I'd mention the irony, again, of you being what you rail against, but I want to see more.
 
As for Obama being a communist. There is tons of evidence to support this fact. His statements, his mentors, his policies.

Let's face it, he's guilty, the only people who deny this are liberals.

You guys don't like to be associated with the C-word, but it's totally accurate.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
 
As for Obama being a communist. There is tons of evidence to support this fact. His statements, his mentors, his policies.

Let's face it, he's guilty, the only people who deny this are liberals.

You guys don't like to be associated with the C-word, but it's totally accurate.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

Apparently, you don't even know what a communist is. While you're looking irony up in the dictionary, why don't you go look communist up as well.
 
Back
Top