APOLOGIZE
lmao
Lmao, maybe he shouldn't be such a cunt?
Isn't he that fag who stormed off a TV set crying?
> rose emoji (commie)
> not a traitor
yes
Isn't he a cuck who dedicated a section of his book to how much he likes to look at dudes fucking his wife?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, Owen.
The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.]
(Aug. 24, 1954, ch. 886, §3, 68 Stat. 776.)
Communists have zero rights under US law. Communists are no longer citizens once they engage in any collusion with any derivative of the Communist Party.
This law has no teeth, they just call themselves socialists. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for this?
>OwenJones
Who?
Isn't he that cucklord from the Guardian?
He is the ultimate cuck, he also accused the right of being "snowflakes" because of the Trump balloon.
He writes for the Guardian which is basically what they use to mop up Lamaars cum from the bed sheets after he's done with their wives and girlfriends (or traps/boyfriends).
He is cringe incarnate.
youtube.com
which enrages me that antifa kikes who march with commie flags arent captured on the spot
What am I not seeing in this picture?
When they call themselves communists they're subject to this law. Otherwise rarenewspapers.com
Smith Act of 1940
en.wikipedia.org
Fun fact about the Smith Act...You know how the feebs have a history of fomenting 'neo-nazi' militias?? The goal there is to shift usage of the Smith act to apply only to "white nationalists" and not "Judeo-Communists"
The Weremacht. Furries and /mlpol/ are organising. And the furture is, quite frankly, fucking disturbing.
he LITERALLY got cucked by a paki so bad he turned gay after having a wank while watching his gf get fucked by the aforementioned pajeet
What happened to the stiff upper lip ‘nil bastardum carborundum ?
Good. I hope the little rat gets the rope real soon.
Furries being implicit white supremacy.
Friendly reminder, BRITISH people should not join in on this, this is what they want, so you get v& for malicious communications.
Lmao
Oh, that’s handy. You appear to have given us legally unrestrained antipodeans carte blanche to fuck with your political machinations. You can blame the russians
He made some relevant points that went unanswered in that video. I didn't watch the whole thing because I don't enjoy the sound of retards squealing but from what I did see
>right wing lady was too fixated on her "killer argument" to respond to his response to it
>he was shit at making himself clear and understood, he's a terrible fucking communicator
if you dont want to suffer the fate of a traitor maybe you shouldnt be traitorous
I read somewhere that you should always kill a traitor before an enemy, how true is this statement?
Perhaps the truest words to ever be spoken. This should be rule #1 for everyone.
his points are automatically invalid because he opposes democracy and shills for a commie state.
he's also yet another spoilt white mummys boy who doesn't care about the damages of mass immigration on the working class.
valid points?
he changed the fucking subject b/c he was being BTFO when she started calling him out on Ecuador and Bolivia
a traitor is irredeemable
If I knew this guys address he wouldn’t leave the house again, sanctimonious little prick
Boohoo
No one likes a traitor, not even the people they are helping. If you a prepared to sell out your own then you cannot be trusted by anyone.
Sweden, heard your right wing party has grown in popularity of recent, you have my respect and I wish Sweden all the best on its uncuckoning.
One day we will be back as Europe should be, nations of culture and white families and the EUSSR reduced to a bad memory.
>b/c he was being BTFO when she started calling him out on Ecuador and Bolivia
I didn't perceive her as BTFOing him there. He made a credible argument, that they are run by socialist parties so how could they not be socialist?, to which her response was a pretty weak "that's not real socialism." It's a line of inquiry worth pursuing but they both dropped it half-explored and I didn't see either make a clear compelling case on the topic.
Then he went on to play for political points with a weaker argument, but that still had some merit - UK is complaining about Venezuelan human rights abuses but doesn't give a shit about Saudi abuses to the point where the UK is selling the weapons the Saudis are using to commit them. How can we take government criticism of Venezuela seriously when it's coming from a government that actively supports similar regimes around the world? Again it's a pretty weak argument I think, far weaker than his first one, but it's abject politics.
>his points are automatically invalid because he opposes democracy and shills for a commie state.
Nothing is automatically invalid.
>he's also yet another spoilt white mummys boy who doesn't care about the damages of mass immigration on the working class.
This is true. "We stand up for workers." - "We want to import a million shitskins to depress wages and steal jobs." Pick one leftist shits.
Traitor and Hypocrite, two worst traits any person can have.
>his points are automatically invalid because he opposes democracy
>unironically supporting (((democracy)))
>Nothing is automatically invalid.
maybe not officially but in my brain I just have a filter that takes anything he says and just stamps it with "bullshit" before I even hear the words.
It's a built in defence mechanism, a bit like never relaxing around blacks.
his points are automatically invalid to ME, because of his character, he's a cuck and has nothing worth hearing other than to laugh at him so any "he has a good point" is automatically (TO ME) rejected because he has an agenda that only leads to the cuckening of the nation.
any evidence that he's a smack addict or is that just a rumor?
why is he such a big baby?
he's certainly a hypocrite
order-order.com
literally earns more than the Prime Minister.
This can't be real. Day of the rope when?
>he mentions them
>she says he's redefining socialism b/c he was
>he changes the subject completely
Bolivia and Ecuador are not socialist tho
having generous welfare programs and high taxes is not socialism
Adam Smith defined welfare under capitalism 50 years before Marx was a stain in his daddy's pantaloons
socialism is state control over the means of production. Ecuador and Bolivia dont have that
Neither does Norway or Sweden or Canada or any of these other places that retards like to pretend are socialist
Scandalous.
I'm not interested in having the argument that they didn't because it would be a massive waste of my time.
I'm just saying that to think that the lady made a compelling argument, you'd have to already agree with her in the first place. Which kinda defeats the point. Nothing she said was convincing - if you're pre-convinced this isn't a problem, but if you put yourself in an impartial state of mind it's clear that she did a poor job at responding to the argument.
Yes he changed the subject, but I think that's more likely because he wanted to play politics and get his licks in (remember: the right wing lady was smashing Corbyn and he was probably more concerned about replying to that than the intellectual rigour of his shitty tabloid news appearance) than because she "BTFO" him and he couldn't respond.
He did respond, in fact, if briefly, and all she did was come back with some trite garbage about "that's not real socialism."
I think Owen quickly realized he was dealing with someone who knew their shit the second she said he was redefining socialism so he turned the conversation into a moving target
he's a dogmatic fucking worm
>He did respond, in fact, if briefly, and all she did was come back with some trite garbage about "that's not real socialism."
Because it's not you dense brainlet
go into a debate knowing the definition of things
those are free-market economies with generous welfare programs
that not socialism
>I think Owen quickly realized he was dealing with someone who knew their shit the second she said he was redefining socialism so he turned the conversation into a moving target
I think he was already planning on moving on to respond to her political attacks against Corbyn, because IIRC he introduces his response with "I have two points" and then goes on to speak about Ecuador and Bolivia. I think at that stage his main concern was getting back on the offensive after she slammed Corbyn, and in his head he connected the pre-rehearsed talking point about Saudi human rights abuses with the government and thought "yep let's go with that."
>Because it's not you dense brainlet
Maybe not, but she certainly presented it that way, meaning that unless you already knew what her point was and agreed with it she would have come across as whining and unconvincing.
"B-b-b-but you're picking and choosing the definitions"
She says this immediately after he points out how she's picking and choosing which (allegedly) socialist countries to examine. She comes off pretty badly there.